Let's add maven plugins for sanity checks at the early stage. I've created a ticket for this [1].
Also, I've found initial pom.xml has a target version Java 8. Do we intend to move to Java 11 (or may be next LTS) and drop Java 8 in Ignite 3.0? [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13751 On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:40 AM Valentin Kulichenko < valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > Folks, > > I went ahead and created the repository [1]. I also configured a TeamCity > project [2] that runs all available JUnit tests on every PR creation or > update. It also sends the status update to GitHub so that it's reflected in > the PR itself so that we can do merges directly from GitHub. Basic steps to > make a change are described on the Wiki page [3]. > > Let me know if you have any questions. > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3 > [2] https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project/ignite3 > [3] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+3.0#ApacheIgnite3.0-DevelopmentProcess > > -Val > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 4:24 PM Valentin Kulichenko < > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks, guys. It looks like we are much closer to the consensus now. I > > totally on board with the plan, but I would also like to address the > > short-term needs. As I've already mentioned earlier, there are several > > active IEPs, but we still don't have even a preliminary technical process > > for working on these IEPs. I believe this might be frustrating for the > > folks who would like to commit code. > > > > The scope we agreed on is quite big, and it will surely take significant > > time to implement all the changes and stabilize them. Therefore, it's > clear > > to me that we will have to maintain 2.x and 3.x in parallel for quite > some > > time - this needs to be addressed somehow. I'm convinced that having a > > separate repo is the ONLY way to do that, and so far, I haven't heard any > > clear alternatives or reasons why we shouldn't do this. > > > > That said, I'm inclined to proceed with this in the next few days - I > will > > create a repo and describe the process (which we, of course, can discuss > > and modify going forward). Let's, at the very least, try and see where it > > leads us. > > > > If someone has any concrete alternative options on how to we can maintain > > two major versions in parallel, let's have another voice discussion this > > Friday. If we do the meeting, we should set it up with a clear goal to > make > > a decision. Please let me know if there is interest in this. > > > > -Val > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 6:31 AM Alexey Goncharuk < > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Good, > >> > >> I think we have an intermediate agreement on the scope and significance > of > >> the changes we want to make. I suggest creating separate discussion > >> streams > >> and calls for each of the suggested topics so that: > >> > >> - It is clear for the community what is the motivation of the stream > >> (this includes both functional targets and technical debt issues > >> pointed > >> out by Sergey) > >> - Who is planning to take an active part in each of the streams (i.e. > >> the 'design committee', as Sergey suggested) > >> - What are the intermediate and final goals for each of the streams > >> - What are the cross-stream interactions and how we integrate them > >> - How each of the streams will be integrated with the current > codebase > >> based on the above (here is where we will see whether drop-in or > >> incremental approaches make more sense) > >> > > > -- Best regards, Andrey V. Mashenkov
