Seems rational.
But still 2.11.0 and 21.1.0 for the time being will look like similar or error in either version... > On 27 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I mean that Ignite 2.x will continue to use old scheme and Ignite 3 > will be e.g. Ignite 21.1 and so on. > > 2021-09-27 14:57 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>: >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > > Best regards, > Ivan Pavlukhin
