Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.13 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]
Igniters, I have cut the release branch: 'ignite-2.13'. Please, cherry-pick new issues if needed. The 2.13 scope is freezed. Unresolved not-blocking issues will be moved on the code freeze stage. The planning release date was updated [1]: Scope Freeze: March 25, 2022 Code Freeze: April 8, 2022 Voting Date: April 15, 2022 Release Date: April 22, 2022 [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.13 чт, 10 мар. 2022 г. в 16:17, Nikita Amelchev : > > Hello, Igniters. > > I have created the 2.13 release page. [1] > > The new SQL Calcite engine is expected to merge in the coming week. > [2] I suggest cutting the 2.13 branch after the merge. I've updated > the planned release dates on the release page. > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.13 > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/3fkq3mn2npz326bp6gjtw3sw8xrlqyho > > чт, 10 февр. 2022 г. в 15:23, Nikita Amelchev : > > > > Guys, > > > > +1 to await merge of the Calcite SQL engine before code-freeze phase > > and release branch cutting. Other features and fixes can be awaited > > too, it's discussable. > > > > But the 2.12 branch was cut on October 15, 2021. There are many fixes > > and features that were merged into the master during this period. The > > total time between branches cut is 5 months (if there is no delay > > happens). Seems it is not so frequently. > > > > чт, 10 февр. 2022 г. в 15:17, Zhenya Stanilovsky > > : > > > > > > > > > Maxim, i think that more frequent releases are useful. > > > Ready to release branch means that it passed all known tests and also > > > have an appropriate votes. > > > More code changes creates more difficulties in final tests and sometimes > > > migration. > > > No need to switch between neighbor minor versions for user if all work > > > properly well. > > > I «vote» for more frequent releases. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>Hi, guys! > > > >>> > > > >>>Ignite 2.12 was released on 17th Jan. And here is a plan to release > > > >>>2.13 on > > > >>>28 Mar. It is only 2.5 months between those versions. IMHO, it's > > > >>>better to > > > >>>have more time between releases: > > > >>>1. We had some bug reports after releasing 2.11, and it can be worth > > > >>>waiting for users feedback about 2.12. Also meetup with description of > > > >>>2.12 > > > >>>will be only next week (16 Feb). > > > >>>2. In my understanding, users don't switch between versions of > > > >>>databases > > > >>>frequently. Actually it's hard work to upgrade such a dependency. So, > > > >>>no > > > >>>need for continuous delivery here. I think it's a common practice, for > > > >>>example, MongoDB releases 1 time per year, Cassandra 2 times. > > > >>>CockroachDB > > > >>>releases minor versions every month, but major versions are still > > > >>>released > > > >>>2 times a year. But I'm not aware of all databases. > > > >>> > > > >>>I think we should move dates for at least 1 month. Also it depends on > > > >>>the > > > >>>Calcite engine readiness. WDYT? > > > >>> > > > >>>Anyway, from my side there are some tickets I want to include to the > > > >>>next > > > >>>release scope: > > > >>>1. Partition reservation for cache queries (it will make IndexQuery > > > >>>work on > > > >>>unstable topology): IGNITE-16030 and IGNITE-16031 > > > >>> > > > >>>2. Also there is a discussion started by Andrey Mashenlov about known > > > >>>index > > > >>>corruption scenarios [1]. It looks like there are at least 2 issues to > > > >>>resolve: dropping of affinity index, handle of orphaned indexes. I > > > >>>think we > > > >>>should fix those known issues before the next release. WDYT? > > > >>> > > > >>>[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/m6dt0pn1qb01d8w6zm2fvo7lxgt0r068 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 3:13 PM Maxim Muzafarov < mmu...@apache.org > > > > >>>wrote: > > > >>> > > > Nikita, > > > > > > Thank you for starting this thread. > > > +1 for these dates, but I think it's better to start the code freeze > > > date when the Calcite engine will be actually merged to the master > > > branch. > > > > > > On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 at 13:10, Nikita Amelchev < namelc...@apache.org > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Ignite Community! > > > > > > > > I suggest starting Apache Ignite 2.13 release activities. > > > > > > > > There is a plan to merge the new Calcite SQL engine. [1] I think > > > > that > > > > 2.13 is a good candidate for it. > > > > > > > > Moreover, we've accumulated a hundred resolved [2] issues with new > > > > features and bug fixes which are waiting for their release date. > > > > For > > > > example, > > > > > > > > BinaryArray introduced, > > > > Read Repair strategies implemented, > > > > CPP Thin: asynchronous network events handling, > > > > NUMA-aware allocator for data regions > > > > etc. > > > > > > >
A new feedback has been added : 72
A new feedback has been added, go to bugyard.io to see all the details... https://bugyard.io A new feedback has been added "This link doesn't work. I think the correct one is https://ignite.apache.org/docs/latest/tools/control-script.; by geral View feedback https://app.bugyard.io/web/app/rycqZJDyY/f/623cad0e1861a400140e10d6
Re: [PROPOSAL] Release Calcite-based SQL engine as an experimental feature
This is great news! Alex, thanks for making it to the end! -- Regards, Konstantin Orlov > On 24 Mar 2022, at 18:07, Alex Plehanov wrote: > > Hello Igniters, > > I've merged the pull request. The Calcite-based SQL engine is in the master > branch now. > If you desire to try it, you can find configuration instructions in > modules/calcite/README.txt file. > > вс, 6 мар. 2022 г. в 13:03, Alex Plehanov : > >> Hello Igniters, >> >> I've prepared the pull request [1] and have plans to merge it to the >> master branch in about two weeks, if there is no objection. >> >> [1]: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/9855 >> >> чт, 30 дек. 2021 г. в 13:43, Anton Vinogradov : >> it would be great to release a new SQL engine in 2.13 as an >>> experimental feature. >>> ++1 >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 12:55 PM Alex Plehanov >>> wrote: >>> Andrey, > Is this [1] a full scope of the tickets that MUST be resolved before >>> the engine could be merged? Yes, we must resolve at least these tickets before merging. If you see >>> any other release blockers fill free to attach them to this ticket. > I think we have to add instructions to the readme file on how to turn >>> a new SQL engine on. Sure, I think it should be the part of documentation ticket. > Also, I don't like the module name "ignite-calcite", because Calcite >>> is an independent project. Personally, I see no problems here (but it's discussable). We have a >>> lot of modules where the name is an independent project: "ignite-kafka", "ignite-spring", "ignite-kubernetes", "ignite-log4j", >>> "ignite-zookeeper", etc. > So, would you mind renaming the module to e.g. "ignite-sql-engine" or "ignite-sql"? Module "ignite-indexing" also contains SQL engine, so names like "ignite-sql-engine" or "ignite-sql" will be ambiguous. чт, 30 дек. 2021 г. в 13:54, Andrey Mashenkov < >>> andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > : > Alex, > it would be great to release a new SQL engine in 2.13 as an > experimental feature. > > Is this [1] a full scope of the tickets that MUST be resolved before >>> the > engine could be merged? > I think we have to add instructions to the readme file on how to turn >>> a new > SQL engine on. > > Also, I don't like the module name "ignite-calcite", because Calcite >>> is an > independent project. > and Ignite just uses it. > So, would you mind renaming the module to e.g. "ignite-sql-engine" or > "ignite-sql"? > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15436 > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 11:10 AM Zhenya Stanilovsky > wrote: > >> >> Alex, great ! >> If someone wants to touch codebase somehow plz use this branch [1] >> Test passed can be found here [2] [3] >> >> [1] >>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/sql-calcite/modules/calcite >> [2] >> > >>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/sql-calcite/modules/calcite/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/query/calcite >> [3] >> > >>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/sql-calcite/modules/calcite/src/test/sql >> >>> > Hello, Igniters! > > As you may already know there is the new Ignite SQL engine based >>> on >> Apache > Calcite currently under development. > > Reasons to move from H2-based engine and motivation for creating >>> the > new > one in details described in IEP-37 [1]. > > You can find all related to the new engine source code changes in the > "sql-calcite" branch [2]. > > Calcite-based SQL engine is not production-ready yet and has a >>> lot of >> known > issues. In the future, the new engine should be fully >>> independent of > "ignite-indexing" and H2, but now it relies on schema management >>> and > indexes implemented in the "ignite-indexing" module and can't >>> work >> without > the old engine. Despite all of the above mentioned, in the >>> current >> state, > it has its own parsing, planning and execution flow and is >>> almost as > functional as the H2-based SQL engine. > > Some users are already interested in the Calcite-based engine and > asking > about the development status and release dates. Calcite-based SQL > engine > will be the only SQL engine in Ignite 3.0. Perhaps even in 2.x we can >> get > rid of the H2-based engine at some time in the future. There is >>> some >> syntax > difference between Calcite and H2 (Calcite is closer to SQL standards >> than > H2) and a totally new execution flow. After the release of this > feature, > users can try their queries and
