Generation is a good one. Also we can use variant from DEB packaging versioning — EPOCH.
> On 17 Oct 2021, at 02:52, Valentin Kulichenko <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Folks, > > Since there are controversial opinions regarding the topic, I've cancelled > the vote and would like to resurrect the discussion. > > There are a couple of items that I would like to hear your opinions on. > > 1. I still propose to have a separate Confluence space for Ignite 3. This > makes total sense to me - Ignite 2 and 3 have such different architectures, > that mixing their internal documentations is really confusing. The same > goes for IEPs. > 2. If we create a mandatory field to Jira as we discussed, what should be > the name? Current suggestions are "Architecture" and "Generation". Are > there any other ideas? > > Please let me know your thoughts. > > -Val > > On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sorry, If I missed something in the thread but in case of a separate >> JIRA project how are users supposed to create e.g. bug tickets? How >> can we make sure that users will not use a wrong JIRA project often? >> >> 2021-10-05 2:50 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko < >> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: >>> Ivan, >>> >>> I'm not pushing, I'm trying to apply the lazy consensus. It soon will be >> a >>> whole month since I've started the discussion - more than enough to >> express >>> concerns and provide alternative suggestions. Please keep in mind that we >>> are trying to address a very specific technical problem that influences >> the >>> development. "Do nothing" is not really an option here. >>> >>> Either way, I will put the initial suggestion for the vote. >>> >>> -Val >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 12:24 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Val, >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> For a moment I felt that the proposal is pushed. Let's not do so. The >>>> subject is very important, years impact I suppose. And the best way >>>> here is to reach absolute consensus. Without tight timelines so far. >>>> In case if we fail with consensus we can arrange formal voting. >>>> >>>> 2021-09-29 14:34 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>: >>>>> I am watching how Apache Ignite does evolve for over a 3 years already >>>> and >>>>> see that such hidden (almost no Open Source Community points could be >>>>> achieved for refactoring and addressing something that is not directly >>>>> project's source executable code) issues drown under constant pressure >>>>> of >>>>> new features and releases. >>>>> >>>>> I have never created issues for Maven build refactoring (for >> instanced) >>>>> because I understand that 1) it is almost impossible for current tech >>>> debt >>>>> already accumulated and 2) to won't be welcomed by community because >> of >>>>> indirect relationship to main project's goals. >>>>> Considering other parts, please, note [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], >>>>> [7], >>>> [8] >>>>> and many many more issues that have no separate ticket. >>>>> >>>>> My point — such technical debt is overwhelming and will be never ever >>>>> approached. >>>>> That is one of the reasons why Ignite 3 being built from scratch, >>>>> having >>>> in >>>>> mind all mistakes we've already made and lots of errors we will never >>>>> do >>>>> just because there would be no legacy basic for that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7190 >>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7326 >>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7672 >>>>> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8496 >>>>> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9866 >>>>> [6] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10600 >>>>> [7] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10683 >>>>> [8] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10696 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 29 Sep 2021, at 14:14, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade? >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m not aware of the issues. >>>>>> Can you, please, send a tickets or description of existing issues? >>>>>> Anyway, it seems change of build tool can be done at any time we want >>>>>> >>>>>>> — issues related to run scripts? >>>>>>> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts? >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m not aware of those too. >>>>>> Can you point to then, please? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, from my point of view. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 14:03, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> >>>> написал(а): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And what about: >>>>>>> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade? >>>>>>> — issues related to run scripts? >>>>>>> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 29 Sep 2021, at 13:47, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Ivan Pavlukhin >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Best regards, >> Ivan Pavlukhin >>
