> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt addressing
Yes, of course. My vision was the following (from the bird eye): - 2.20 - removals of LOCAL caches, MVCC and other abandoned features. (User API doesn’t change). - 2.30 - replace static XML configuration with the new dynamic approach. - 2.40 - replace H2 SQL engine with the Calcite etc. Versions depends on feature readiness. Anyway, I step back with the initial Ignite3 development, because, don’t want to interfere the progress. Respect to the developers who have courage to develop such complex things from scratch. > 29 сент. 2021 г., в 12:55, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> написал(а): > > >> I believe that we should improve Ignite evolutionary and not revolutionary. >> First of all, change user API with the slow improvements step by step. > > Nikolay, > > Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt addressing? > > >> >> >>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 11:43, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> >>> написал(а): >>> >>> Hello! >>> >>> If we go the second route, we can call the field "Generation". >>> >>> Generation: Ignite 2.x >>> Generation: Ignite 3 >>> >>> (no new tickets should ever be filed for Ignite 1.x but if they are, they >>> should go to the first Generation) >>> >>> Regards. >>> -- >>> Ilya Kasnacheev >>> >>> >>> ср, 29 сент. 2021 г. в 00:33, Valentin Kulichenko < >>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> As for the original topic, we need to come to a solution. Let me summarize >>>> what we've discussed so far. >>>> >>>> -PROBLEM- >>>> >>>> Ignite 3 is the next major version of Apache Ignite. It targets the same >>>> use cases and provides a similar set of features as Ignite 2. At the same >>>> time, Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are *technically* separate projects. They are >>>> developed in different repositories (and therefore are based on different >>>> codebases) and implement different internal architectures. To achieve a >>>> more efficient development process, we need to create a clear separation >>>> between 2.x and 3.x within *development resources* (Jira and Confluence). >>>> >>>> -POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS- >>>> >>>> 1. Create a separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite 3 >>>> (initial suggestion). >>>> 2. Add a *mandatory* field in Jira to identify whether a ticket belongs to >>>> 2.x or 3.x. >>>> >>>> If we go with #2, there are still several things to figure out: >>>> >>>> - What is the name of this field? It needs to be intuitive to anyone who >>>> joins the community. >>>> - We need to make sure that Ignite 3 tickets are not mapped to 2.x >>>> versions, and vice versa. Can we restrict this in Jira? Or we will have >>>> to >>>> monitor this manually? >>>> - What do we do with Confluence? >>>> >>>> Nikolay, Ilya, Denis, and others who opposed the initial suggestion: if you >>>> still prefer the second option, could you please address the points above? >>>> I don't think it can be treated as an actual suggestion until we cover >>>> these details. >>>> >>>> Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear picture >>>> on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1. >>>> >>>> -Val >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:22 PM Valentin Kulichenko < >>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Folks, >>>>> >>>>> Versioning is a separate topic. We agreed on the current scheme in March >>>>> [1]. If someone thinks we need to change it, please create a new thread >>>> and >>>>> present your suggestions. >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> >>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17ebaad35ca2bd70e716e67683ae7fec9bd97372b6cc57a7e9c81f9d%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E >>>>> >>>>> -Val >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:37 PM Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >
