Good day Cole, Can we make it at Tuesday, time you proposed ? On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 10:51 PM Ken Hu <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't have a preference. All of those dates/times should work for me. > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 12:32 PM Cole Greer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > Apologies for my delay in scheduling this meeting. I believe a time of > > 08:00 PST/17:00 CET/16:00 UTC is best for everyone who has responded > here. > > I suggest scheduling the meeting this coming Friday, Monday, or Tuesday > > (Dec. 5, 8, or 9). > > > > Please let me know of any preferences between these days, or if an > > alternative date/time is needed. I will schedule an open meeting once we > > have agreement on the date and time. > > > > Thanks, > > Cole > > > > On 2025/11/25 08:01:09 Andrii Lomakin via dev wrote: > > > Sorry, my bad, lost in time zones: It is 12:00 AM to 10:00 AM in PT. > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 8:58 AM Andrii Lomakin < > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > My preferred times are 09:00 to 19:00 CET (08:00 to 18:00 UTC), which > > is > > > > 12:00 AM to 1:00 PM PT. > > > > Please note that my availability highly depends on the specific day, > > as my > > > > schedule is often fully booked with other meetings. > > > > > > > > Lev and Vladislav, please add your preferred times as well. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Andrii Lomakin > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 5:14 PM Ken Hu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Let's try to use an option that doesn't require an account (e.g. > Zoom, > > > >> Microsoft Teams, Google Meet). Cole, as a member of the PMC, do you > > mind > > > >> creating/managing the meeting for this open discussion? My preferred > > times > > > >> are anything between 8AM-8PM PT (16:00-04:00 UTC), but I have some > > > >> flexibility and can extend beyond those hours. What time works best > > for > > > >> everyone else? > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 5:34 AM Andrii Lomakin via dev < > > > >> [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > +Vladislav Grinin <[email protected]> upon his > > request. > > > >> > > > > >> > Vladislav is working on TinkerPop LDBC benchmarks that we plan to > > > >> release > > > >> > in the near future. > > > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 8:40 PM Ken Hu <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > In TinkerPop 4.x, we're going to have more options since the > > server is > > > >> > > likely to host more endpoints (e.g. status). This opens up new > > > >> > > possibilities with how the GLVs can interact with the server and > > in > > > >> > > particular with different providers/vendors. I think we should > > have an > > > >> > open > > > >> > > discussion on these topics that you have brought up on the dev > > list > > > >> > > recently. Maybe we can schedule an open meeting for the first > > week of > > > >> Dec > > > >> > > (to avoid the Thanksgiving holiday)? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > If anyone is interested in discussing some of these items then > > please > > > >> > reply > > > >> > > to this thread. We can decide on a time that works for everyone > in > > > >> > several > > > >> > > days after anyone that is interested gets a chance to say so. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 9:05 AM Andrii Lomakin > > > >> > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Good day. > > > >> > > > Let me provide one more argument. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Not so long I read the book 'differentiate or die' that is > > > >> important > > > >> > > point > > > >> > > > for vendors as with tool that promotes unification by default > > they > > > >> > can't > > > >> > > > differentiate themselves so efficiently and prefer tools that > > > >> promotes > > > >> > > > differentiation. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > I think that is valuable point. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, 20 Nov 2025, 14:53 Andrii Lomakin, < > > > >> > [email protected] > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Good day. > > > >> > > > > I understand that it contradicts current 4.x goal. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > To decide I propose to check how many vendors can > practically > > work > > > >> > > > without > > > >> > > > > their dependencies added , I also propose to take into > account > > > >> impact > > > >> > > of > > > >> > > > > each vendor on infrastructure. I have a feeling that feature > > rich > > > >> > > vendors > > > >> > > > > can't work without their dependencies added. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > As one more argument JDBC users work in this way all the > time > > and > > > >> > don't > > > >> > > > > see any issues with this approach. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, 19 Nov 2025, 19:49 Andrii Lomakin, < > > > >> > > [email protected] > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Good day, > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> As Ken Hu correctly noted in a separate thread, the fact > that > > > >> users > > > >> > > > >> sometimes ignore vendor libraries is leading to confusion. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I propose changing how users obtain a RemoteGraphTraversal > > > >> instance. > > > >> > > > >> Instead of allowing direct creation of the instance, I > > suggest > > > >> > using a > > > >> > > > >> method similar to RemoteGraphTraversalManager.connect(url, > > name, > > > >> > > > password). > > > >> > > > >> This new approach would enforce registration of the > provider > > > >> library > > > >> > > by > > > >> > > > >> throwing an exception if it is missing. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I recognize that this proposal may be controversial, but I > > > >> believe > > > >> > it > > > >> > > is > > > >> > > > >> worth considering as a solution to the long-lasting issue. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Looking forward to reading your opinions. > > > >> > > > >> YouTrackDB development lead, > > > >> > > > >> Andrii Lomakin. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- Andrii Lomakin YouTrackDB development lead
