How will not they clash if version is based only on date?
> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning scheme, e.g.
> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions will not clash.
>
> [1] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html
>
> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>:
>> That name will definitely confuse Jira users.
>>
>> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems most intuitive and
>> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for instance.
>>
>>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra <saikat.mai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we were to come up
>>> with a name my other suggestion would be
>>>
>>> Ignite-kernel
>>>
>>> kernel - for the central or most important part of something
>>>
>>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine compiled for high
>>> throughput accelerators
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Saikat
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my knowledge).
>>>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything else is a
>>>> technicality.
>>>>
>>>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I don't really see
>>>> a
>>>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come up with a name
>>>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
>>>>
>>>> Let's see what others think.
>>>>
>>>> -Val
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a
>>>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two predefined
>>>> values -
>>>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, it needs to
>>>>> be
>>>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What disturbs me is
>>>> that
>>>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the recently
>>>> released
>>>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that disturbing.
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>> Denis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Denis,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two separate
>>>>>> projects, because they are based on different codebases. The split
>>>> you're
>>>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created the repo for Ignite
>>>> 3.
>>>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, as these two
>>>>>> shared the codebase.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just transitioned to
>>>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, or will
>>>> require
>>>>> a
>>>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two different tickets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are just
>>>> different
>>>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you correctly mentioned,
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the same time, they are
>>>>>> developed as different projects on the technical level. Let's not
>>>> confuse
>>>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely orthogonal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change anything
>>>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling and
>>>>>> efficient
>>>>>> ticket management.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a different
>>>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for
>>>> high-performance
>>>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs - thus, a
>>>> major
>>>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. This is how
>>>>> you're
>>>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to work on
>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>> 2 we
>>>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. Moreover, many
>>>>> tickets
>>>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 only - which
>>>>> is a
>>>>>>> version change in our JIRA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Val,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects under Ignite's
>>>>>>>> brand
>>>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. This is a bad
>>>>>>>> case when two different projects must have dependent versions and
>>>> even
>>>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the development and release
>>>>>>>> processes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is having
>>>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from zero. However,
>>>> both
>>>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
>>>>>>>> <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ilya,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different values? Why
>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current features? And
>>>>> why is
>>>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both Ignite 2 and
>>>>> Ignite 3
>>>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is true. I
>>>> honestly
>>>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems counterproductive at
>>>> this
>>>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, let's discuss
>>>> them.
>>>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we are all
>>>> here?
>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be called "Ignite
>>>> <some
>>>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus and values
>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's features.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>> nizhi...@apache.org
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as "Ignite"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 is a new
>>>>>>>> database engine built on completely new architecture.
>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the name. All is
>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>> - source code.
>>>>>>>>>>> - repository.
>>>>>>>>>>> - features.
>>>>>>>>>>> - API.
>>>>>>>>>>> - road map.
>>>>>>>>>>> - contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules.
>>>>>>>>>>> - release cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>> *** you are here ***
>>>>>>>>>>> - jira
>>>>>>>>>>> - confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as "Ignite3" is
>>>>> just
>>>>>>>> another project?
>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and Ignite3
>>>> should
>>>>>>>> coexists?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org
>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done through
>>>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira project
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
>>>>>>>> mr.wei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that are
>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be
>>>>> logical
>>>>>>>> and natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <
>>>>>>>> alexpolovt...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we already have some
>>>>>>>> pending Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear where to put them
>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x
>>>>>>>> will coexist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we
>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project,
>>>>>>>> which seems to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x
>>>> tickets,
>>>>>>>> but this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new
>>>>>>>> ticket, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single
>>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new
>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>> space for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
