I noticed some free-from commit messages in ignite-3 repository. I think we should use ticket-based workflow and commit messages as usual.
[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/commits/main 2020-12-21 10:55 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>: > There is no problem to have both in new repository, if skilled enthusiast > will take over that job. > > I guess we will stick to Maven for time being but development of > Gradle-based building system can be done in parallel. > I can even add corresponding development build configurations for TeamCity, > or even introduce some kind of switch — so that we can test old and new > build approaches and provide seamless transition if we agree on that. > >> On 19 Dec 2020, at 01:00, Valentin Kulichenko >> <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Ivan, >> >> There was a very brief discussion around this. Basically, it looks like >> switching from Maven to something else is not going to bring much value, >> but at the same time will be quite demanding because the community has >> much >> more experience with Maven. However, I would say that it is still >> debatable at this point -- please feel free to share your thoughts on >> this. >> >> -Val >> >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 10:53 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Igniters, >>> >>> Forgive me that I am not reading dev list carefully these days. Was it >>> explicitly decided that Maven should be used as a build system for >>> Ignite 3? As there is a new repository we possibly can update our >>> build tools as well. What do you think? >>> >>> 2020-12-17 22:45 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko < >>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: >>>> Hi Dmitriy, >>>> >>>> I don't think there is any reason for concern at this point. The >>> community >>>> agreed on the scope of the changes for 3.0 - it is described on Wiki. >>>> The >>>> scope is quite big, so it is clear that 2.x and 3.x will have to exist >>>> in >>>> parallel for a significant amount of time, so we need a place where we >>> can >>>> merge the code for 3.x. Thus, I've created this new repo. We already >>>> have >>>> multiple IEPs, as well as several contributors who are actively >>>> involved >>> in >>>> development. Some of the first PRs were merged today. >>>> >>>> I didn't hear any objections since the repo was created. >>>> >>>> -Val >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 7:28 AM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Folks, I'm a little bit concerned about the simultaneous >>>>> - existence of the repo https://github.com/apache/ignite-3 and PRs for >>>>> that >>>>> repo >>>>> - and a couple of downvotes from PMC members. >>>>> >>>>> Is it all fine here? Was there any vote /discussion where it was >>>>> discussed >>>>> and consensus approved? What is the status of the ignite-3 repo? >>>>> >>>>> вт, 15 дек. 2020 г. в 17:30, Carbone, Adam >>>>> <adam.carb...@bottomline.com >>>> : >>>>> >>>>>> I don't believe Java 7 was LTS, and I hope that others will have >>>>>> upgraded >>>>>> long before that. If that is the release timeframe for 3.0, then I >>>>> suppose >>>>>> that would makes sense, I would still doubt that people would be >>>>>> going >>>>>> newer than java 11, just my opinion of what I'm seeing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> ~adam >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam Carbone | Director of Innovation – Intelligent Platform Team | >>>>>> Bottomline Technologies >>>>>> Office: 603-501-6446 | Mobile: 603-570-8418 >>>>>> www.bottomline.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/15/20, 4:25 AM, "Ilya Kasnacheev" <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello! >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess Ignite 3.0 will be ready for production use somewhere in >>>>> 2022, >>>>>> realistically. By that time, Java 8 will be long enough out of >>>>> support >>>>>> so >>>>>> that most companies will actually forbid its use, WRT >>>>>> vulnerabilities >>>>>> et >>>>>> all. >>>>>> >>>>>> After all we have managed to upgrade from Java 7 to Java 8 and >>> only >>>>>> got a >>>>>> minor amount of complaints. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> пн, 14 дек. 2020 г. в 19:06, Carbone, Adam < >>>>>> adam.carb...@bottomline.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> So just one bit to consider... Are there features that you need >>>>>> to >>>>>> use in >>>>>>> these newer versions of java? Or are we just updating to stay >>>>>> current? The >>>>>>> reason I ask is that there are still lots of people in an >>>>> enterprise >>>>>> space >>>>>>> that are beholden to having to support legacy JAVAEE supported >>>>>> applications >>>>>>> on Websphere, Weblogic, Redhat, etc... and the organizations >>> that >>>>>> use those >>>>>>> platforms are slow to move... Most of them are still on Java8 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So as a platform I think a strong consideration needs to be >>>>>> towards >>>>>> having >>>>>>> the broadest possible support profile until it becomes an >>>>> impediment >>>>>> to >>>>>>> doing things that the platform needs. So far I haven't seen huge >>>>>> things in >>>>>>> the newer versions of java that are must haves ( a few >>> exceptions >>>>> are >>>>>>> things that would be really nice to take advantage of ). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that apache commons has taken the right approach by >>>>>> staying >>>>>> on >>>>>>> java 8 giving the largest possible user base. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Even standardizing on java 11 would have to make us reconsider >>>>>> Ignite as >>>>>>> the platform we are using, we are not so invested in it as of >>>>>> now, >>>>>> even >>>>>>> though we have big plans to leverage it. Just because we aren't >>>>> sure >>>>>> when >>>>>>> we are going to be able to upgrade from java8. It has support >>>>>> through 2022, >>>>>>> so I imagine that is when we will be discussing that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ~Adam >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adam Carbone | Director of Innovation – Intelligent Platform >>> Team >>>>>> | >>>>>>> Bottomline Technologies >>>>>>> Office: 603-501-6446 | Mobile: 603-570-8418 >>>>>>> www.bottomline.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11/24/20, 7:38 AM, "Alexey Zinoviev" <zaleslaw....@gmail.com >>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Java 15 is better, VarHandles, ForeignMemory access and so >>>>>> on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In both cases, I support the Java version 11 and higher for >>>>>> the >>>>>>> development! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:21, Andrey Mashenkov < >>>>>>> andrey.mashen...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13751__;!!O3mv9RujDHg!37ujwREhL1l-B3DmRXix6yaN1dE1KgH1Tx_tSl0eLZe4x1y0NnUlF4MzW5FeKAO2Ejs8$ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/ignite-3__;!!O3mv9RujDHg!37ujwREhL1l-B3DmRXix6yaN1dE1KgH1Tx_tSl0eLZe4x1y0NnUlF4MzW5FeKIq24lxF$ >>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project/ignite3__;!!O3mv9RujDHg!37ujwREhL1l-B3DmRXix6yaN1dE1KgH1Tx_tSl0eLZe4x1y0NnUlF4MzW5FeKFGL_oJx$ >>>>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache*Ignite*3.0*ApacheIgnite3.0-DevelopmentProcess__;Kysj!!O3mv9RujDHg!37ujwREhL1l-B3DmRXix6yaN1dE1KgH1Tx_tSl0eLZe4x1y0NnUlF4MzW5FeKNhWzQ0s$ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Ivan Pavlukhin >>> > > -- Best regards, Ivan Pavlukhin
