Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Ivan Pavlukhin]

Please disregard previous message. I jumped into a wrong train.

Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

пт, 28 февр. 2020 г. в 22:52, Ivan Pavlukhin :
>
> I believe that some permissions are required to access a project with
> release builds on TC.
>
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>
> пт, 28 февр. 2020 г. в 11:58, Pavel Tupitsyn :
> >
> > Sergey, can't confirm, those links work for me
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:17 PM Sergey Antonov 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, Maxim!
> > >
> > > All your links to ci.ignite.apache.org/ return 404 http code. It's okay?
> > >
> > > чт, 27 февр. 2020 г. в 19:06, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > >
> > > > Igniters,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've prepared everything to start a vote.
> > > > Are we ready to go on?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have uploaded a release candidate to:
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/2.8.0-rc1/
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/packages_2.8.0-rc1/
> > > >
> > > > The following staging can be used for testing:
> > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheignite-1474/
> > > >
> > > > Tag with name 2.8.0-rc1 created:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=341b01dfd8abf2d9b01d468ad1bb26dfe84ac4f6
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > TC [Check RC: Licenses, compile, chksum]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085462=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote4CheckRcLicensesChecksum=buildResultsDiv
> > > >
> > > > TC [3] Build & Upload Nuget Staging Packages
> > > >
> > > >
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085460=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages=buildResultsDiv
> > > >
> > > > TC [2] Compare w/ Previous Release
> > > >
> > > >
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085458=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_IgniteRelease72CheckFileConsistency=buildResultsDiv
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 22:44, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Maxim,
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes are in ignite-2.8 now, and builds have passed [1].
> > > > > I think we can proceed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you and sorry for the broken build.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/buildConfiguration/ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages/5083539?buildTab=overview
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:46 PM Pavel Tupitsyn 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm running a final check in branch ignite-2.8-dotnet-build-fix,
> > > > should be
> > > > > > done soon.
> > > > > > After that I'll merge the changes into ignite-2.8 (and backport to
> > > > > > master), and we can proceed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I had to fix both TC project and the build script.
> > > > > > There were a few regressions introduced by various recent changes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should
> > > I
> > > > > > check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > > > > > We are supposed to verify that NuGet packages are valid by 
> > > > > > installing
> > > > them
> > > > > > and starting Ignite.
> > > > > > However, we added an automatic check recently: `Run NuGet
> > > verification
> > > > > > script` build step.
> > > > > > So the only thing to check is that new package appears on MyGet [1]
> > > > > > (scroll down to see versions and dates)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > https://www.myget.org/feed/apache-ignite-staging/package/nuget/Apache.Ignite
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:42 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Pavel,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thank you for your help.
> > > > > >> Please, let me know when I can proceed with a vote preparation.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should 
> > > > > >> I
> > > > > >> check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > >>
> > > >
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 10:46, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Maxim, I did a quick fix for the script, but it did not work.
> > > > > >> > Investigating further, will get back to you later today.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:10 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> > > mmu...@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Pavel,
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Can you assist me with preparing NuGet staging according to the
> > > > > >> >> release steps [1]? I've double-checked everything related to the
> > > > build
> > > > > >> >> but suite [2] for preparing nuget package still fails (sorry for
> > > > > >> >> running it multiple times).
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> I see some issues in the log which 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Ivan Pavlukhin]

I believe that some permissions are required to access a project with
release builds on TC.

Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

пт, 28 февр. 2020 г. в 11:58, Pavel Tupitsyn :
>
> Sergey, can't confirm, those links work for me
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:17 PM Sergey Antonov 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello, Maxim!
> >
> > All your links to ci.ignite.apache.org/ return 404 http code. It's okay?
> >
> > чт, 27 февр. 2020 г. в 19:06, Maxim Muzafarov :
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > >
> > > I've prepared everything to start a vote.
> > > Are we ready to go on?
> > >
> > >
> > > I have uploaded a release candidate to:
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/2.8.0-rc1/
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/packages_2.8.0-rc1/
> > >
> > > The following staging can be used for testing:
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheignite-1474/
> > >
> > > Tag with name 2.8.0-rc1 created:
> > >
> > >
> > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=341b01dfd8abf2d9b01d468ad1bb26dfe84ac4f6
> > >
> > >
> > > TC [Check RC: Licenses, compile, chksum]
> > >
> > >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085462=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote4CheckRcLicensesChecksum=buildResultsDiv
> > >
> > > TC [3] Build & Upload Nuget Staging Packages
> > >
> > >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085460=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages=buildResultsDiv
> > >
> > > TC [2] Compare w/ Previous Release
> > >
> > >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085458=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_IgniteRelease72CheckFileConsistency=buildResultsDiv
> > >
> > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 22:44, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maxim,
> > > >
> > > > Fixes are in ignite-2.8 now, and builds have passed [1].
> > > > I think we can proceed.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you and sorry for the broken build.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/buildConfiguration/ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages/5083539?buildTab=overview
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:46 PM Pavel Tupitsyn 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm running a final check in branch ignite-2.8-dotnet-build-fix,
> > > should be
> > > > > done soon.
> > > > > After that I'll merge the changes into ignite-2.8 (and backport to
> > > > > master), and we can proceed.
> > > > >
> > > > > I had to fix both TC project and the build script.
> > > > > There were a few regressions introduced by various recent changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should
> > I
> > > > > check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > > > > We are supposed to verify that NuGet packages are valid by installing
> > > them
> > > > > and starting Ignite.
> > > > > However, we added an automatic check recently: `Run NuGet
> > verification
> > > > > script` build step.
> > > > > So the only thing to check is that new package appears on MyGet [1]
> > > > > (scroll down to see versions and dates)
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > >
> > https://www.myget.org/feed/apache-ignite-staging/package/nuget/Apache.Ignite
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:42 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Pavel,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thank you for your help.
> > > > >> Please, let me know when I can proceed with a vote preparation.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should I
> > > > >> check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1]
> > > > >>
> > >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 10:46, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Maxim, I did a quick fix for the script, but it did not work.
> > > > >> > Investigating further, will get back to you later today.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:10 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> > mmu...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Pavel,
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Can you assist me with preparing NuGet staging according to the
> > > > >> >> release steps [1]? I've double-checked everything related to the
> > > build
> > > > >> >> but suite [2] for preparing nuget package still fails (sorry for
> > > > >> >> running it multiple times).
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> I see some issues in the log which may be related to the file
> > copy
> > > in
> > > > >> >> the build script which recently changed [4].
> > > > >> >> I'm still digging in, but anyway can you take a look and help?
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Step 2:
> > > > >> >> Copy-Item : Cannot find path
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > >
> > 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'because
> > > > >> >> it does not exist.
> > > > 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Hello, Petr,


Can we share these suites [1] [2] to the whole community, for
instance, in read-only mode?
I think they are helpful for testing\checking the release by each
community member.


TC [Check RC: Licenses, compile, chksum]
[1] 
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085462=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote4CheckRcLicensesChecksum=buildResultsDiv

TC [2] Compare w/ Previous Release
[2] 
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085458=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_IgniteRelease72CheckFileConsistency=buildResultsDiv

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 16:41, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>
> Sergey,
>
>
> It seems these links ([4] Check RC: Licenses, compile, checksum) [1]
> is only accessed for users included into the release group on the
> TeamCity.
> Sorry for not mentioned it before.
>
>
> [1] 
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085462=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote4CheckRcLicensesChecksum=buildResultsDiv
>
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 23:17, Sergey Antonov  
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello, Maxim!
> >
> > All your links to ci.ignite.apache.org/ return 404 http code. It's okay?
> >
> > чт, 27 февр. 2020 г. в 19:06, Maxim Muzafarov :
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > >
> > > I've prepared everything to start a vote.
> > > Are we ready to go on?
> > >
> > >
> > > I have uploaded a release candidate to:
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/2.8.0-rc1/
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/packages_2.8.0-rc1/
> > >
> > > The following staging can be used for testing:
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheignite-1474/
> > >
> > > Tag with name 2.8.0-rc1 created:
> > >
> > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=341b01dfd8abf2d9b01d468ad1bb26dfe84ac4f6
> > >
> > >
> > > TC [Check RC: Licenses, compile, chksum]
> > >
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085462=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote4CheckRcLicensesChecksum=buildResultsDiv
> > >
> > > TC [3] Build & Upload Nuget Staging Packages
> > >
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085460=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages=buildResultsDiv
> > >
> > > TC [2] Compare w/ Previous Release
> > >
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085458=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_IgniteRelease72CheckFileConsistency=buildResultsDiv
> > >
> > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 22:44, Pavel Tupitsyn  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maxim,
> > > >
> > > > Fixes are in ignite-2.8 now, and builds have passed [1].
> > > > I think we can proceed.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you and sorry for the broken build.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/buildConfiguration/ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages/5083539?buildTab=overview
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:46 PM Pavel Tupitsyn 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm running a final check in branch ignite-2.8-dotnet-build-fix,
> > > should be
> > > > > done soon.
> > > > > After that I'll merge the changes into ignite-2.8 (and backport to
> > > > > master), and we can proceed.
> > > > >
> > > > > I had to fix both TC project and the build script.
> > > > > There were a few regressions introduced by various recent changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should I
> > > > > check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > > > > We are supposed to verify that NuGet packages are valid by installing
> > > them
> > > > > and starting Ignite.
> > > > > However, we added an automatic check recently: `Run NuGet verification
> > > > > script` build step.
> > > > > So the only thing to check is that new package appears on MyGet [1]
> > > > > (scroll down to see versions and dates)
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > https://www.myget.org/feed/apache-ignite-staging/package/nuget/Apache.Ignite
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:42 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Pavel,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thank you for your help.
> > > > >> Please, let me know when I can proceed with a vote preparation.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should I
> > > > >> check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1]
> > > > >>
> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 10:46, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Maxim, I did a quick fix for the script, but it did not work.
> > > > >> > Investigating further, will get back to you later today.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:10 PM Maxim Muzafarov  > > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Pavel,
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Can you assist me with preparing NuGet staging according to the
> > > > >> >> release steps [1]? I've double-checked 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Sergey Antonov]

Maxim,

I get 404 code for all TC links [1][2][3] in your email, not only TC [Check
RC: Licenses, compile, chksum]. [1]

[1]
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085462=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote4CheckRcLicensesChecksum=buildResultsDiv
[2]
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085460=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages=buildResultsDiv
[3]
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085458=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_IgniteRelease72CheckFileConsistency=buildResultsDiv


пт, 28 февр. 2020 г. в 16:41, Maxim Muzafarov :

> Sergey,
>
>
> It seems these links ([4] Check RC: Licenses, compile, checksum) [1]
> is only accessed for users included into the release group on the
> TeamCity.
> Sorry for not mentioned it before.
>
>
> [1]
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085462=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote4CheckRcLicensesChecksum=buildResultsDiv
>
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 23:17, Sergey Antonov 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello, Maxim!
> >
> > All your links to ci.ignite.apache.org/ return 404 http code. It's okay?
> >
> > чт, 27 февр. 2020 г. в 19:06, Maxim Muzafarov :
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > >
> > > I've prepared everything to start a vote.
> > > Are we ready to go on?
> > >
> > >
> > > I have uploaded a release candidate to:
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/2.8.0-rc1/
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/packages_2.8.0-rc1/
> > >
> > > The following staging can be used for testing:
> > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheignite-1474/
> > >
> > > Tag with name 2.8.0-rc1 created:
> > >
> > >
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=341b01dfd8abf2d9b01d468ad1bb26dfe84ac4f6
> > >
> > >
> > > TC [Check RC: Licenses, compile, chksum]
> > >
> > >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085462=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote4CheckRcLicensesChecksum=buildResultsDiv
> > >
> > > TC [3] Build & Upload Nuget Staging Packages
> > >
> > >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085460=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages=buildResultsDiv
> > >
> > > TC [2] Compare w/ Previous Release
> > >
> > >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085458=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_IgniteRelease72CheckFileConsistency=buildResultsDiv
> > >
> > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 22:44, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maxim,
> > > >
> > > > Fixes are in ignite-2.8 now, and builds have passed [1].
> > > > I think we can proceed.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you and sorry for the broken build.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/buildConfiguration/ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages/5083539?buildTab=overview
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:46 PM Pavel Tupitsyn  >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm running a final check in branch ignite-2.8-dotnet-build-fix,
> > > should be
> > > > > done soon.
> > > > > After that I'll merge the changes into ignite-2.8 (and backport to
> > > > > master), and we can proceed.
> > > > >
> > > > > I had to fix both TC project and the build script.
> > > > > There were a few regressions introduced by various recent changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts
> should I
> > > > > check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > > > > We are supposed to verify that NuGet packages are valid by
> installing
> > > them
> > > > > and starting Ignite.
> > > > > However, we added an automatic check recently: `Run NuGet
> verification
> > > > > script` build step.
> > > > > So the only thing to check is that new package appears on MyGet [1]
> > > > > (scroll down to see versions and dates)
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > >
> https://www.myget.org/feed/apache-ignite-staging/package/nuget/Apache.Ignite
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:42 PM Maxim Muzafarov  >
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Pavel,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thank you for your help.
> > > > >> Please, let me know when I can proceed with a vote preparation.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts
> should I
> > > > >> check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1]
> > > > >>
> > >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 10:46, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> ptupit...@apache.org>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Maxim, I did a quick fix for the script, but it did not work.
> > > > >> > Investigating further, will get back to you later today.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:10 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> mmu...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Pavel,
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Can you assist me with preparing NuGet staging according to 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Sergey,


It seems these links ([4] Check RC: Licenses, compile, checksum) [1]
is only accessed for users included into the release group on the
TeamCity.
Sorry for not mentioned it before.


[1] 
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085462=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote4CheckRcLicensesChecksum=buildResultsDiv

On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 23:17, Sergey Antonov  wrote:
>
> Hello, Maxim!
>
> All your links to ci.ignite.apache.org/ return 404 http code. It's okay?
>
> чт, 27 февр. 2020 г. в 19:06, Maxim Muzafarov :
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> >
> > I've prepared everything to start a vote.
> > Are we ready to go on?
> >
> >
> > I have uploaded a release candidate to:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/2.8.0-rc1/
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/packages_2.8.0-rc1/
> >
> > The following staging can be used for testing:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheignite-1474/
> >
> > Tag with name 2.8.0-rc1 created:
> >
> > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=341b01dfd8abf2d9b01d468ad1bb26dfe84ac4f6
> >
> >
> > TC [Check RC: Licenses, compile, chksum]
> >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085462=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote4CheckRcLicensesChecksum=buildResultsDiv
> >
> > TC [3] Build & Upload Nuget Staging Packages
> >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085460=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages=buildResultsDiv
> >
> > TC [2] Compare w/ Previous Release
> >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085458=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_IgniteRelease72CheckFileConsistency=buildResultsDiv
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 22:44, Pavel Tupitsyn  wrote:
> > >
> > > Maxim,
> > >
> > > Fixes are in ignite-2.8 now, and builds have passed [1].
> > > I think we can proceed.
> > >
> > > Thank you and sorry for the broken build.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/buildConfiguration/ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages/5083539?buildTab=overview
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:46 PM Pavel Tupitsyn 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm running a final check in branch ignite-2.8-dotnet-build-fix,
> > should be
> > > > done soon.
> > > > After that I'll merge the changes into ignite-2.8 (and backport to
> > > > master), and we can proceed.
> > > >
> > > > I had to fix both TC project and the build script.
> > > > There were a few regressions introduced by various recent changes.
> > > >
> > > > > Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should I
> > > > check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > > > We are supposed to verify that NuGet packages are valid by installing
> > them
> > > > and starting Ignite.
> > > > However, we added an automatic check recently: `Run NuGet verification
> > > > script` build step.
> > > > So the only thing to check is that new package appears on MyGet [1]
> > > > (scroll down to see versions and dates)
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > https://www.myget.org/feed/apache-ignite-staging/package/nuget/Apache.Ignite
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:42 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Pavel,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Thank you for your help.
> > > >> Please, let me know when I can proceed with a vote preparation.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should I
> > > >> check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > > >>
> > > >> [1]
> > > >>
> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 10:46, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Maxim, I did a quick fix for the script, but it did not work.
> > > >> > Investigating further, will get back to you later today.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:10 PM Maxim Muzafarov  > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Pavel,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Can you assist me with preparing NuGet staging according to the
> > > >> >> release steps [1]? I've double-checked everything related to the
> > build
> > > >> >> but suite [2] for preparing nuget package still fails (sorry for
> > > >> >> running it multiple times).
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I see some issues in the log which may be related to the file copy
> > in
> > > >> >> the build script which recently changed [4].
> > > >> >> I'm still digging in, but anyway can you take a look and help?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Step 2:
> > > >> >> Copy-Item : Cannot find path
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'because
> > > >> >> it does not exist.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Step 3:
> > > >> >> Cannot find path
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core\bin\Release\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'
> > > >> >> because 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Sergey Antonov]

Guys, can somebody check those links from TC account different from @
apache.org domain?

пт, 28 февр. 2020 г. в 11:58, Pavel Tupitsyn :

> Sergey, can't confirm, those links work for me
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:17 PM Sergey Antonov  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hello, Maxim!
> >
> > All your links to ci.ignite.apache.org/ return 404 http code. It's okay?
> >
> > чт, 27 февр. 2020 г. в 19:06, Maxim Muzafarov :
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > >
> > > I've prepared everything to start a vote.
> > > Are we ready to go on?
> > >
> > >
> > > I have uploaded a release candidate to:
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/2.8.0-rc1/
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/packages_2.8.0-rc1/
> > >
> > > The following staging can be used for testing:
> > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheignite-1474/
> > >
> > > Tag with name 2.8.0-rc1 created:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=341b01dfd8abf2d9b01d468ad1bb26dfe84ac4f6
> > >
> > >
> > > TC [Check RC: Licenses, compile, chksum]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085462=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote4CheckRcLicensesChecksum=buildResultsDiv
> > >
> > > TC [3] Build & Upload Nuget Staging Packages
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085460=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages=buildResultsDiv
> > >
> > > TC [2] Compare w/ Previous Release
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085458=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_IgniteRelease72CheckFileConsistency=buildResultsDiv
> > >
> > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 22:44, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maxim,
> > > >
> > > > Fixes are in ignite-2.8 now, and builds have passed [1].
> > > > I think we can proceed.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you and sorry for the broken build.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/buildConfiguration/ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages/5083539?buildTab=overview
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:46 PM Pavel Tupitsyn  >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm running a final check in branch ignite-2.8-dotnet-build-fix,
> > > should be
> > > > > done soon.
> > > > > After that I'll merge the changes into ignite-2.8 (and backport to
> > > > > master), and we can proceed.
> > > > >
> > > > > I had to fix both TC project and the build script.
> > > > > There were a few regressions introduced by various recent changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts
> should
> > I
> > > > > check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > > > > We are supposed to verify that NuGet packages are valid by
> installing
> > > them
> > > > > and starting Ignite.
> > > > > However, we added an automatic check recently: `Run NuGet
> > verification
> > > > > script` build step.
> > > > > So the only thing to check is that new package appears on MyGet [1]
> > > > > (scroll down to see versions and dates)
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.myget.org/feed/apache-ignite-staging/package/nuget/Apache.Ignite
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:42 PM Maxim Muzafarov  >
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Pavel,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thank you for your help.
> > > > >> Please, let me know when I can proceed with a vote preparation.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts
> should I
> > > > >> check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1]
> > > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 10:46, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> ptupit...@apache.org>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Maxim, I did a quick fix for the script, but it did not work.
> > > > >> > Investigating further, will get back to you later today.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:10 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> > mmu...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Pavel,
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Can you assist me with preparing NuGet staging according to the
> > > > >> >> release steps [1]? I've double-checked everything related to
> the
> > > build
> > > > >> >> but suite [2] for preparing nuget package still fails (sorry
> for
> > > > >> >> running it multiple times).
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> I see some issues in the log which may be related to the file
> > copy
> > > in
> > > > >> >> the build script which recently changed [4].
> > > > >> >> I'm still digging in, but anyway can you take a look and help?
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Step 2:
> > > > >> >> Copy-Item : Cannot find path
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > >
> >
> 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'because
> > > > >> >> it 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Alexey Goncharuk]

Maxim, I checked the links - looks we are all set!

чт, 27 февр. 2020 г. в 23:17, Sergey Antonov :

> Hello, Maxim!
>
> All your links to ci.ignite.apache.org/ return 404 http code. It's okay?
>
> чт, 27 февр. 2020 г. в 19:06, Maxim Muzafarov :
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> >
> > I've prepared everything to start a vote.
> > Are we ready to go on?
> >
> >
> > I have uploaded a release candidate to:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/2.8.0-rc1/
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/packages_2.8.0-rc1/
> >
> > The following staging can be used for testing:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheignite-1474/
> >
> > Tag with name 2.8.0-rc1 created:
> >
> >
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=341b01dfd8abf2d9b01d468ad1bb26dfe84ac4f6
> >
> >
> > TC [Check RC: Licenses, compile, chksum]
> >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085462=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote4CheckRcLicensesChecksum=buildResultsDiv
> >
> > TC [3] Build & Upload Nuget Staging Packages
> >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085460=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages=buildResultsDiv
> >
> > TC [2] Compare w/ Previous Release
> >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085458=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_IgniteRelease72CheckFileConsistency=buildResultsDiv
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 22:44, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maxim,
> > >
> > > Fixes are in ignite-2.8 now, and builds have passed [1].
> > > I think we can proceed.
> > >
> > > Thank you and sorry for the broken build.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/buildConfiguration/ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages/5083539?buildTab=overview
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:46 PM Pavel Tupitsyn 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm running a final check in branch ignite-2.8-dotnet-build-fix,
> > should be
> > > > done soon.
> > > > After that I'll merge the changes into ignite-2.8 (and backport to
> > > > master), and we can proceed.
> > > >
> > > > I had to fix both TC project and the build script.
> > > > There were a few regressions introduced by various recent changes.
> > > >
> > > > > Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should
> I
> > > > check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > > > We are supposed to verify that NuGet packages are valid by installing
> > them
> > > > and starting Ignite.
> > > > However, we added an automatic check recently: `Run NuGet
> verification
> > > > script` build step.
> > > > So the only thing to check is that new package appears on MyGet [1]
> > > > (scroll down to see versions and dates)
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> >
> https://www.myget.org/feed/apache-ignite-staging/package/nuget/Apache.Ignite
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:42 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Pavel,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Thank you for your help.
> > > >> Please, let me know when I can proceed with a vote preparation.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should I
> > > >> check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > > >>
> > > >> [1]
> > > >>
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 10:46, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Maxim, I did a quick fix for the script, but it did not work.
> > > >> > Investigating further, will get back to you later today.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:10 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> mmu...@apache.org
> > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Pavel,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Can you assist me with preparing NuGet staging according to the
> > > >> >> release steps [1]? I've double-checked everything related to the
> > build
> > > >> >> but suite [2] for preparing nuget package still fails (sorry for
> > > >> >> running it multiple times).
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I see some issues in the log which may be related to the file
> copy
> > in
> > > >> >> the build script which recently changed [4].
> > > >> >> I'm still digging in, but anyway can you take a look and help?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Step 2:
> > > >> >> Copy-Item : Cannot find path
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> >
> 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'because
> > > >> >> it does not exist.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Step 3:
> > > >> >> Cannot find path
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> >
> 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core\bin\Release\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'
> > > >> >> because it does not exist.
> > > >> >> At
> > > >>
> >
> C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\build.ps1:283
> > > >> >> char:47
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> pack: invalid arguments.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> [1]
> > 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Petr Ivanov]

I guest those links on CI are visible to only Release Manager, mostly PMCs from 
Apache Ignite.


> On 28 Feb 2020, at 11:58, Pavel Tupitsyn  wrote:
> 
> Sergey, can't confirm, those links work for me
> 
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:17 PM Sergey Antonov 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hello, Maxim!
>> 
>> All your links to ci.ignite.apache.org/ return 404 http code. It's okay?
>> 
>> чт, 27 февр. 2020 г. в 19:06, Maxim Muzafarov :
>> 
>>> Igniters,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I've prepared everything to start a vote.
>>> Are we ready to go on?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I have uploaded a release candidate to:
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/2.8.0-rc1/
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/packages_2.8.0-rc1/
>>> 
>>> The following staging can be used for testing:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheignite-1474/
>>> 
>>> Tag with name 2.8.0-rc1 created:
>>> 
>>> 
>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=341b01dfd8abf2d9b01d468ad1bb26dfe84ac4f6
>>> 
>>> 
>>> TC [Check RC: Licenses, compile, chksum]
>>> 
>>> 
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085462=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote4CheckRcLicensesChecksum=buildResultsDiv
>>> 
>>> TC [3] Build & Upload Nuget Staging Packages
>>> 
>>> 
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085460=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages=buildResultsDiv
>>> 
>>> TC [2] Compare w/ Previous Release
>>> 
>>> 
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085458=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_IgniteRelease72CheckFileConsistency=buildResultsDiv
>>> 
>>> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 22:44, Pavel Tupitsyn 
>> wrote:
 
 Maxim,
 
 Fixes are in ignite-2.8 now, and builds have passed [1].
 I think we can proceed.
 
 Thank you and sorry for the broken build.
 
 [1]
 
>>> 
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/buildConfiguration/ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages/5083539?buildTab=overview
 
 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:46 PM Pavel Tupitsyn 
>>> wrote:
 
> I'm running a final check in branch ignite-2.8-dotnet-build-fix,
>>> should be
> done soon.
> After that I'll merge the changes into ignite-2.8 (and backport to
> master), and we can proceed.
> 
> I had to fix both TC project and the build script.
> There were a few regressions introduced by various recent changes.
> 
>> Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should
>> I
> check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> We are supposed to verify that NuGet packages are valid by installing
>>> them
> and starting Ignite.
> However, we added an automatic check recently: `Run NuGet
>> verification
> script` build step.
> So the only thing to check is that new package appears on MyGet [1]
> (scroll down to see versions and dates)
> 
> [1]
> 
>>> 
>> https://www.myget.org/feed/apache-ignite-staging/package/nuget/Apache.Ignite
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:42 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
>>> wrote:
> 
>> Pavel,
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you for your help.
>> Please, let me know when I can proceed with a vote preparation.
>> 
>> 
>> Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should I
>> check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
>> 
>> [1]
>> 
>>> 
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
>> 
>> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 10:46, Pavel Tupitsyn 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Maxim, I did a quick fix for the script, but it did not work.
>>> Investigating further, will get back to you later today.
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:10 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
>> mmu...@apache.org
 
>> wrote:
 
 Pavel,
 
 
 Can you assist me with preparing NuGet staging according to the
 release steps [1]? I've double-checked everything related to the
>>> build
 but suite [2] for preparing nuget package still fails (sorry for
 running it multiple times).
 
 I see some issues in the log which may be related to the file
>> copy
>>> in
 the build script which recently changed [4].
 I'm still digging in, but anyway can you take a look and help?
 
 
 Step 2:
 Copy-Item : Cannot find path
 
>> 
>>> 
>> 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'because
 it does not exist.
 
 Step 3:
 Cannot find path
 
>> 
>>> 
>> 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core\bin\Release\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'
 because it does not exist.
 At
>> 
>>> 
>> C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\build.ps1:283
 char:47
 
 pack: 

RE: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager] [I]

[Sergey-A Kosarev]

Classification: For internal use only

Hi, I can confirm. I also see:
404
You do not have enough permissions to access project with internal id: project20
i.e for this link:
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085462=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote4CheckRcLicensesChecksum=buildResultsDiv


Kind regards,



Sergey Kosarev

-Original Message-
From: Pavel Tupitsyn [mailto:ptupit...@apache.org]
Sent: 28 February 2020 11:58
To: dev 
Subject: Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Sergey, can't confirm, those links work for me

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:17 PM Sergey Antonov 
wrote:

> Hello, Maxim!
>
> All your links to ci.ignite.apache.org/ return 404 http code. It's okay?
>
> чт, 27 февр. 2020 г. в 19:06, Maxim Muzafarov :
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> >
> > I've prepared everything to start a vote.
> > Are we ready to go on?
> >
> >
> > I have uploaded a release candidate to:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/2.8.0-rc1/
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/packages_2.8.0-rc1/
> >
> > The following staging can be used for testing:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheignite-1
> > 474/
> >
> > Tag with name 2.8.0-rc1 created:
> >
> >
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=341b01dfd8
> abf2d9b01d468ad1bb26dfe84ac4f6
> >
> >
> > TC [Check RC: Licenses, compile, chksum]
> >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085462=
> ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote4CheckRcLicensesChecksum=build
> ResultsDiv
> >
> > TC [3] Build & Upload Nuget Staging Packages
> >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085460=
> ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages=buildResul
> tsDiv
> >
> > TC [2] Compare w/ Previous Release
> >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085458=
> ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_IgniteRelease72CheckFileConsistency=build
> ResultsDiv
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 22:44, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maxim,
> > >
> > > Fixes are in ignite-2.8 now, and builds have passed [1].
> > > I think we can proceed.
> > >
> > > Thank you and sorry for the broken build.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/buildConfiguration/ApacheIgniteReleaseJav
> a8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages/5083539?buildTab=overview
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:46 PM Pavel Tupitsyn
> > > 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm running a final check in branch ignite-2.8-dotnet-build-fix,
> > should be
> > > > done soon.
> > > > After that I'll merge the changes into ignite-2.8 (and backport
> > > > to master), and we can proceed.
> > > >
> > > > I had to fix both TC project and the build script.
> > > > There were a few regressions introduced by various recent changes.
> > > >
> > > > > Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts
> > > > > should
> I
> > > > check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > > > We are supposed to verify that NuGet packages are valid by
> > > > installing
> > them
> > > > and starting Ignite.
> > > > However, we added an automatic check recently: `Run NuGet
> verification
> > > > script` build step.
> > > > So the only thing to check is that new package appears on MyGet
> > > > [1] (scroll down to see versions and dates)
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> >
> https://www.myget.org/feed/apache-ignite-staging/package/nuget/Apache.
> Ignite
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:42 PM Maxim Muzafarov
> > > > 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Pavel,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Thank you for your help.
> > > >> Please, let me know when I can proceed with a vote preparation.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts
> > > >> should I check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > > >>
> > > >> [1]
> > > >>
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteRel
> easeJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 10:46, Pa

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

Sergey, can't confirm, those links work for me

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:17 PM Sergey Antonov 
wrote:

> Hello, Maxim!
>
> All your links to ci.ignite.apache.org/ return 404 http code. It's okay?
>
> чт, 27 февр. 2020 г. в 19:06, Maxim Muzafarov :
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> >
> > I've prepared everything to start a vote.
> > Are we ready to go on?
> >
> >
> > I have uploaded a release candidate to:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/2.8.0-rc1/
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/packages_2.8.0-rc1/
> >
> > The following staging can be used for testing:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheignite-1474/
> >
> > Tag with name 2.8.0-rc1 created:
> >
> >
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=341b01dfd8abf2d9b01d468ad1bb26dfe84ac4f6
> >
> >
> > TC [Check RC: Licenses, compile, chksum]
> >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085462=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote4CheckRcLicensesChecksum=buildResultsDiv
> >
> > TC [3] Build & Upload Nuget Staging Packages
> >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085460=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages=buildResultsDiv
> >
> > TC [2] Compare w/ Previous Release
> >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085458=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_IgniteRelease72CheckFileConsistency=buildResultsDiv
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 22:44, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maxim,
> > >
> > > Fixes are in ignite-2.8 now, and builds have passed [1].
> > > I think we can proceed.
> > >
> > > Thank you and sorry for the broken build.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/buildConfiguration/ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages/5083539?buildTab=overview
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:46 PM Pavel Tupitsyn 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm running a final check in branch ignite-2.8-dotnet-build-fix,
> > should be
> > > > done soon.
> > > > After that I'll merge the changes into ignite-2.8 (and backport to
> > > > master), and we can proceed.
> > > >
> > > > I had to fix both TC project and the build script.
> > > > There were a few regressions introduced by various recent changes.
> > > >
> > > > > Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should
> I
> > > > check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > > > We are supposed to verify that NuGet packages are valid by installing
> > them
> > > > and starting Ignite.
> > > > However, we added an automatic check recently: `Run NuGet
> verification
> > > > script` build step.
> > > > So the only thing to check is that new package appears on MyGet [1]
> > > > (scroll down to see versions and dates)
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> >
> https://www.myget.org/feed/apache-ignite-staging/package/nuget/Apache.Ignite
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:42 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Pavel,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Thank you for your help.
> > > >> Please, let me know when I can proceed with a vote preparation.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should I
> > > >> check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > > >>
> > > >> [1]
> > > >>
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 10:46, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Maxim, I did a quick fix for the script, but it did not work.
> > > >> > Investigating further, will get back to you later today.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:10 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> mmu...@apache.org
> > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Pavel,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Can you assist me with preparing NuGet staging according to the
> > > >> >> release steps [1]? I've double-checked everything related to the
> > build
> > > >> >> but suite [2] for preparing nuget package still fails (sorry for
> > > >> >> running it multiple times).
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I see some issues in the log which may be related to the file
> copy
> > in
> > > >> >> the build script which recently changed [4].
> > > >> >> I'm still digging in, but anyway can you take a look and help?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Step 2:
> > > >> >> Copy-Item : Cannot find path
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> >
> 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'because
> > > >> >> it does not exist.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Step 3:
> > > >> >> Cannot find path
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> >
> 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core\bin\Release\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'
> > > >> >> because it does not exist.
> > > >> >> At
> > > >>
> >
> C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\build.ps1:283
> > > >> >> char:47
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> pack: invalid arguments.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Sergey Antonov]

Hello, Maxim!

All your links to ci.ignite.apache.org/ return 404 http code. It's okay?

чт, 27 февр. 2020 г. в 19:06, Maxim Muzafarov :

> Igniters,
>
>
> I've prepared everything to start a vote.
> Are we ready to go on?
>
>
> I have uploaded a release candidate to:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/2.8.0-rc1/
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/packages_2.8.0-rc1/
>
> The following staging can be used for testing:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheignite-1474/
>
> Tag with name 2.8.0-rc1 created:
>
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=341b01dfd8abf2d9b01d468ad1bb26dfe84ac4f6
>
>
> TC [Check RC: Licenses, compile, chksum]
>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085462=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote4CheckRcLicensesChecksum=buildResultsDiv
>
> TC [3] Build & Upload Nuget Staging Packages
>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085460=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages=buildResultsDiv
>
> TC [2] Compare w/ Previous Release
>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085458=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_IgniteRelease72CheckFileConsistency=buildResultsDiv
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 22:44, Pavel Tupitsyn  wrote:
> >
> > Maxim,
> >
> > Fixes are in ignite-2.8 now, and builds have passed [1].
> > I think we can proceed.
> >
> > Thank you and sorry for the broken build.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/buildConfiguration/ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages/5083539?buildTab=overview
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:46 PM Pavel Tupitsyn 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm running a final check in branch ignite-2.8-dotnet-build-fix,
> should be
> > > done soon.
> > > After that I'll merge the changes into ignite-2.8 (and backport to
> > > master), and we can proceed.
> > >
> > > I had to fix both TC project and the build script.
> > > There were a few regressions introduced by various recent changes.
> > >
> > > > Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should I
> > > check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > > We are supposed to verify that NuGet packages are valid by installing
> them
> > > and starting Ignite.
> > > However, we added an automatic check recently: `Run NuGet verification
> > > script` build step.
> > > So the only thing to check is that new package appears on MyGet [1]
> > > (scroll down to see versions and dates)
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> https://www.myget.org/feed/apache-ignite-staging/package/nuget/Apache.Ignite
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:42 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Pavel,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for your help.
> > >> Please, let me know when I can proceed with a vote preparation.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should I
> > >> check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > >>
> > >> [1]
> > >>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 10:46, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Maxim, I did a quick fix for the script, but it did not work.
> > >> > Investigating further, will get back to you later today.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:10 PM Maxim Muzafarov  >
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Pavel,
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Can you assist me with preparing NuGet staging according to the
> > >> >> release steps [1]? I've double-checked everything related to the
> build
> > >> >> but suite [2] for preparing nuget package still fails (sorry for
> > >> >> running it multiple times).
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I see some issues in the log which may be related to the file copy
> in
> > >> >> the build script which recently changed [4].
> > >> >> I'm still digging in, but anyway can you take a look and help?
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Step 2:
> > >> >> Copy-Item : Cannot find path
> > >> >>
> > >>
> 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'because
> > >> >> it does not exist.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Step 3:
> > >> >> Cannot find path
> > >> >>
> > >>
> 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core\bin\Release\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'
> > >> >> because it does not exist.
> > >> >> At
> > >>
> C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\build.ps1:283
> > >> >> char:47
> > >> >>
> > >> >> pack: invalid arguments.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> [1]
> > >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-4.4.2.PrepareNuGetstaging
> > >> >> [2]
> > >>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
> > >> >> [3]
> > >>
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5080553=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages=buildLog
> > >> >> [4] 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Igniters,


I've prepared everything to start a vote.
Are we ready to go on?


I have uploaded a release candidate to:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/2.8.0-rc1/
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/packages_2.8.0-rc1/

The following staging can be used for testing:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheignite-1474/

Tag with name 2.8.0-rc1 created:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=341b01dfd8abf2d9b01d468ad1bb26dfe84ac4f6


TC [Check RC: Licenses, compile, chksum]
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085462=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote4CheckRcLicensesChecksum=buildResultsDiv

TC [3] Build & Upload Nuget Staging Packages
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085460=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages=buildResultsDiv

TC [2] Compare w/ Previous Release
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5085458=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_IgniteRelease72CheckFileConsistency=buildResultsDiv

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 22:44, Pavel Tupitsyn  wrote:
>
> Maxim,
>
> Fixes are in ignite-2.8 now, and builds have passed [1].
> I think we can proceed.
>
> Thank you and sorry for the broken build.
>
> [1]
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/buildConfiguration/ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages/5083539?buildTab=overview
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:46 PM Pavel Tupitsyn  wrote:
>
> > I'm running a final check in branch ignite-2.8-dotnet-build-fix, should be
> > done soon.
> > After that I'll merge the changes into ignite-2.8 (and backport to
> > master), and we can proceed.
> >
> > I had to fix both TC project and the build script.
> > There were a few regressions introduced by various recent changes.
> >
> > > Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should I
> > check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> > We are supposed to verify that NuGet packages are valid by installing them
> > and starting Ignite.
> > However, we added an automatic check recently: `Run NuGet verification
> > script` build step.
> > So the only thing to check is that new package appears on MyGet [1]
> > (scroll down to see versions and dates)
> >
> > [1]
> > https://www.myget.org/feed/apache-ignite-staging/package/nuget/Apache.Ignite
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:42 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
> >
> >> Pavel,
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you for your help.
> >> Please, let me know when I can proceed with a vote preparation.
> >>
> >>
> >> Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should I
> >> check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
> >>
> >> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 10:46, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Maxim, I did a quick fix for the script, but it did not work.
> >> > Investigating further, will get back to you later today.
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:10 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Pavel,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Can you assist me with preparing NuGet staging according to the
> >> >> release steps [1]? I've double-checked everything related to the build
> >> >> but suite [2] for preparing nuget package still fails (sorry for
> >> >> running it multiple times).
> >> >>
> >> >> I see some issues in the log which may be related to the file copy in
> >> >> the build script which recently changed [4].
> >> >> I'm still digging in, but anyway can you take a look and help?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Step 2:
> >> >> Copy-Item : Cannot find path
> >> >>
> >> 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'because
> >> >> it does not exist.
> >> >>
> >> >> Step 3:
> >> >> Cannot find path
> >> >>
> >> 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core\bin\Release\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'
> >> >> because it does not exist.
> >> >> At
> >> C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\build.ps1:283
> >> >> char:47
> >> >>
> >> >> pack: invalid arguments.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> [1]
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-4.4.2.PrepareNuGetstaging
> >> >> [2]
> >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
> >> >> [3]
> >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5080553=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages=buildLog
> >> >> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12604
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 10:36, Maxim Muzafarov 
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Denis,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Currently, we have no blockers. I'm preparing the build.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 21:10, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Folks,
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Is there anything else apart from the open documentation tickets
> >> 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

Maxim,

Fixes are in ignite-2.8 now, and builds have passed [1].
I think we can proceed.

Thank you and sorry for the broken build.

[1]
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/buildConfiguration/ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages/5083539?buildTab=overview

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:46 PM Pavel Tupitsyn  wrote:

> I'm running a final check in branch ignite-2.8-dotnet-build-fix, should be
> done soon.
> After that I'll merge the changes into ignite-2.8 (and backport to
> master), and we can proceed.
>
> I had to fix both TC project and the build script.
> There were a few regressions introduced by various recent changes.
>
> > Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should I
> check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
> We are supposed to verify that NuGet packages are valid by installing them
> and starting Ignite.
> However, we added an automatic check recently: `Run NuGet verification
> script` build step.
> So the only thing to check is that new package appears on MyGet [1]
> (scroll down to see versions and dates)
>
> [1]
> https://www.myget.org/feed/apache-ignite-staging/package/nuget/Apache.Ignite
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:42 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>
>> Pavel,
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your help.
>> Please, let me know when I can proceed with a vote preparation.
>>
>>
>> Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should I
>> check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
>>
>> [1]
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
>>
>> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 10:46, Pavel Tupitsyn 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Maxim, I did a quick fix for the script, but it did not work.
>> > Investigating further, will get back to you later today.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:10 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Pavel,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Can you assist me with preparing NuGet staging according to the
>> >> release steps [1]? I've double-checked everything related to the build
>> >> but suite [2] for preparing nuget package still fails (sorry for
>> >> running it multiple times).
>> >>
>> >> I see some issues in the log which may be related to the file copy in
>> >> the build script which recently changed [4].
>> >> I'm still digging in, but anyway can you take a look and help?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Step 2:
>> >> Copy-Item : Cannot find path
>> >>
>> 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'because
>> >> it does not exist.
>> >>
>> >> Step 3:
>> >> Cannot find path
>> >>
>> 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core\bin\Release\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'
>> >> because it does not exist.
>> >> At
>> C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\build.ps1:283
>> >> char:47
>> >>
>> >> pack: invalid arguments.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> [1]
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-4.4.2.PrepareNuGetstaging
>> >> [2]
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
>> >> [3]
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5080553=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages=buildLog
>> >> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12604
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 10:36, Maxim Muzafarov 
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Denis,
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Currently, we have no blockers. I'm preparing the build.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 21:10, Denis Magda  wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Folks,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Is there anything else apart from the open documentation tickets
>> that
>> >> > > prevent us from starting the release vote? I think that it should
>> take
>> >> > > around two weeks to run the release through the vote and announce
>> it. The
>> >> > > top doc changes should be finished throughout that time already.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > -
>> >> > > Denis
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:55 AM Maxim Muzafarov 
>> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Ilya,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I think we must accept only blocker issues to the release branch.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > My previous experience tells me that even a small change which
>> seems
>> >> > > > absolutely easy and clear can break everything. So, let's move
>> this
>> >> > > > issue [1] to the next release. Currently, it doesn't look like a
>> >> > > > blocker.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12672
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 13:51, Maxim Muzafarov 
>> wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Igniters,
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > I've prepared the issue [1] and PR [2] with removing @deprecate
>> >> > > > > annotation on DataRegionMetrics and adding @IgniteExperimental
>> to the
>> >> > > > > new metrics API.
>> >> > > > > Can anyone review my changes?
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > [1] 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

I'm running a final check in branch ignite-2.8-dotnet-build-fix, should be
done soon.
After that I'll merge the changes into ignite-2.8 (and backport to master),
and we can proceed.

I had to fix both TC project and the build script.
There were a few regressions introduced by various recent changes.

> Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should I
check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
We are supposed to verify that NuGet packages are valid by installing them
and starting Ignite.
However, we added an automatic check recently: `Run NuGet verification
script` build step.
So the only thing to check is that new package appears on MyGet [1] (scroll
down to see versions and dates)

[1]
https://www.myget.org/feed/apache-ignite-staging/package/nuget/Apache.Ignite


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:42 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:

> Pavel,
>
>
> Thank you for your help.
> Please, let me know when I can proceed with a vote preparation.
>
>
> Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should I
> check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?
>
> [1]
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 10:46, Pavel Tupitsyn  wrote:
> >
> > Maxim, I did a quick fix for the script, but it did not work.
> > Investigating further, will get back to you later today.
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:10 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Pavel,
> >>
> >>
> >> Can you assist me with preparing NuGet staging according to the
> >> release steps [1]? I've double-checked everything related to the build
> >> but suite [2] for preparing nuget package still fails (sorry for
> >> running it multiple times).
> >>
> >> I see some issues in the log which may be related to the file copy in
> >> the build script which recently changed [4].
> >> I'm still digging in, but anyway can you take a look and help?
> >>
> >>
> >> Step 2:
> >> Copy-Item : Cannot find path
> >>
> 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'because
> >> it does not exist.
> >>
> >> Step 3:
> >> Cannot find path
> >>
> 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core\bin\Release\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'
> >> because it does not exist.
> >> At
> C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\build.ps1:283
> >> char:47
> >>
> >> pack: invalid arguments.
> >>
> >>
> >> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-4.4.2.PrepareNuGetstaging
> >> [2]
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
> >> [3]
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5080553=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages=buildLog
> >> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12604
> >>
> >> On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 10:36, Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Denis,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Currently, we have no blockers. I'm preparing the build.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 21:10, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Folks,
> >> > >
> >> > > Is there anything else apart from the open documentation tickets
> that
> >> > > prevent us from starting the release vote? I think that it should
> take
> >> > > around two weeks to run the release through the vote and announce
> it. The
> >> > > top doc changes should be finished throughout that time already.
> >> > >
> >> > > -
> >> > > Denis
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:55 AM Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Ilya,
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I think we must accept only blocker issues to the release branch.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > My previous experience tells me that even a small change which
> seems
> >> > > > absolutely easy and clear can break everything. So, let's move
> this
> >> > > > issue [1] to the next release. Currently, it doesn't look like a
> >> > > > blocker.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12672
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 13:51, Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Igniters,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I've prepared the issue [1] and PR [2] with removing @deprecate
> >> > > > > annotation on DataRegionMetrics and adding @IgniteExperimental
> to the
> >> > > > > new metrics API.
> >> > > > > Can anyone review my changes?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12690
> >> > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7440
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 13:42, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Hello!
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I have just merged a fix for embarrassing issue where you
> could UPDATE
> >> > > > > > entries with Spring Data, but not "Update" or "update" them.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Pavel,


Thank you for your help.
Please, let me know when I can proceed with a vote preparation.


Can you also provide some details - which exactly artefacts should I
check on staging resource after the [1] suite execution?

[1] 
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 10:46, Pavel Tupitsyn  wrote:
>
> Maxim, I did a quick fix for the script, but it did not work.
> Investigating further, will get back to you later today.
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:10 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>>
>> Pavel,
>>
>>
>> Can you assist me with preparing NuGet staging according to the
>> release steps [1]? I've double-checked everything related to the build
>> but suite [2] for preparing nuget package still fails (sorry for
>> running it multiple times).
>>
>> I see some issues in the log which may be related to the file copy in
>> the build script which recently changed [4].
>> I'm still digging in, but anyway can you take a look and help?
>>
>>
>> Step 2:
>> Copy-Item : Cannot find path
>> 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'because
>> it does not exist.
>>
>> Step 3:
>> Cannot find path
>> 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core\bin\Release\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'
>> because it does not exist.
>> At 
>> C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\build.ps1:283
>> char:47
>>
>> pack: invalid arguments.
>>
>>
>> [1] 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-4.4.2.PrepareNuGetstaging
>> [2] 
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
>> [3] 
>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5080553=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages=buildLog
>> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12604
>>
>> On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 10:36, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>> >
>> > Denis,
>> >
>> >
>> > Currently, we have no blockers. I'm preparing the build.
>> >
>> > On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 21:10, Denis Magda  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Folks,
>> > >
>> > > Is there anything else apart from the open documentation tickets that
>> > > prevent us from starting the release vote? I think that it should take
>> > > around two weeks to run the release through the vote and announce it. The
>> > > top doc changes should be finished throughout that time already.
>> > >
>> > > -
>> > > Denis
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:55 AM Maxim Muzafarov  
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Ilya,
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I think we must accept only blocker issues to the release branch.
>> > > >
>> > > > My previous experience tells me that even a small change which seems
>> > > > absolutely easy and clear can break everything. So, let's move this
>> > > > issue [1] to the next release. Currently, it doesn't look like a
>> > > > blocker.
>> > > >
>> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12672
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 13:51, Maxim Muzafarov  
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Igniters,
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I've prepared the issue [1] and PR [2] with removing @deprecate
>> > > > > annotation on DataRegionMetrics and adding @IgniteExperimental to the
>> > > > > new metrics API.
>> > > > > Can anyone review my changes?
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12690
>> > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7440
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 13:42, Ilya Kasnacheev 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Hello!
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I have just merged a fix for embarrassing issue where you could 
>> > > > > > UPDATE
>> > > > > > entries with Spring Data, but not "Update" or "update" them.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I suggest adding this fix to the scope of 2.8, since Spring Data is
>> > > > popular
>> > > > > > and it does not in any way affect code outside of its modules.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12672
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > WDYT?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > пн, 17 февр. 2020 г. в 12:44, Maxim Muzafarov :
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Alexey,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Yes. I will remove @deprecation according to the vote results and
>> > > > will
>> > > > > > > go further with the release steps [1] since there no blockers 
>> > > > > > > left.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 11:48, Alexey Goncharuk
>> > > > > > >  wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Folks,
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I have merged IGNITE-12650 (mark MVCC as experimental) to 
>> > > > > > > > master
>> > > 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

Maxim, I did a quick fix for the script, but it did not work.
Investigating further, will get back to you later today.

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:10 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:

> Pavel,
>
>
> Can you assist me with preparing NuGet staging according to the
> release steps [1]? I've double-checked everything related to the build
> but suite [2] for preparing nuget package still fails (sorry for
> running it multiple times).
>
> I see some issues in the log which may be related to the file copy in
> the build script which recently changed [4].
> I'm still digging in, but anyway can you take a look and help?
>
>
> Step 2:
> Copy-Item : Cannot find path
>
> 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'because
> it does not exist.
>
> Step 3:
> Cannot find path
>
> 'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core\bin\Release\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'
> because it does not exist.
> At
> C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\build.ps1:283
> char:47
>
> pack: invalid arguments.
>
>
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-4.4.2.PrepareNuGetstaging
> [2]
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
> [3]
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5080553=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages=buildLog
> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12604
>
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 10:36, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
> >
> > Denis,
> >
> >
> > Currently, we have no blockers. I'm preparing the build.
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 21:10, Denis Magda  wrote:
> > >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > Is there anything else apart from the open documentation tickets that
> > > prevent us from starting the release vote? I think that it should take
> > > around two weeks to run the release through the vote and announce it.
> The
> > > top doc changes should be finished throughout that time already.
> > >
> > > -
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:55 AM Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ilya,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think we must accept only blocker issues to the release branch.
> > > >
> > > > My previous experience tells me that even a small change which seems
> > > > absolutely easy and clear can break everything. So, let's move this
> > > > issue [1] to the next release. Currently, it doesn't look like a
> > > > blocker.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12672
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 13:51, Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I've prepared the issue [1] and PR [2] with removing @deprecate
> > > > > annotation on DataRegionMetrics and adding @IgniteExperimental to
> the
> > > > > new metrics API.
> > > > > Can anyone review my changes?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12690
> > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7440
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 13:42, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have just merged a fix for embarrassing issue where you could
> UPDATE
> > > > > > entries with Spring Data, but not "Update" or "update" them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I suggest adding this fix to the scope of 2.8, since Spring Data
> is
> > > > popular
> > > > > > and it does not in any way affect code outside of its modules.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12672
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > пн, 17 февр. 2020 г. в 12:44, Maxim Muzafarov  >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alexey,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes. I will remove @deprecation according to the vote results
> and
> > > > will
> > > > > > > go further with the release steps [1] since there no blockers
> left.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 11:48, Alexey Goncharuk
> > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have merged IGNITE-12650 (mark MVCC as experimental) to
> master
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > ignite-2.8. What's left? Should we remove deprecation from
> the old
> > > > > > > metrics
> > > > > > > > and start the vote?
> > > > > > >
> > > >
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Pavel,


Can you assist me with preparing NuGet staging according to the
release steps [1]? I've double-checked everything related to the build
but suite [2] for preparing nuget package still fails (sorry for
running it multiple times).

I see some issues in the log which may be related to the file copy in
the build script which recently changed [4].
I'm still digging in, but anyway can you take a look and help?


Step 2:
Copy-Item : Cannot find path
'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'because
it does not exist.

Step 3:
Cannot find path
'C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\Apache.Ignite.Core\bin\Release\Apache.Ignite.Core.dll'
because it does not exist.
At 
C:\BuildAgent\work\3722fcb3466a49e6\src\modules\platforms\dotnet\build.ps1:283
char:47

pack: invalid arguments.


[1] 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-4.4.2.PrepareNuGetstaging
[2] 
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages
[3] 
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5080553=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages=buildLog
[4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12604

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 10:36, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>
> Denis,
>
>
> Currently, we have no blockers. I'm preparing the build.
>
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 21:10, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > Is there anything else apart from the open documentation tickets that
> > prevent us from starting the release vote? I think that it should take
> > around two weeks to run the release through the vote and announce it. The
> > top doc changes should be finished throughout that time already.
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:55 AM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
> >
> > > Ilya,
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we must accept only blocker issues to the release branch.
> > >
> > > My previous experience tells me that even a small change which seems
> > > absolutely easy and clear can break everything. So, let's move this
> > > issue [1] to the next release. Currently, it doesn't look like a
> > > blocker.
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12672
> > >
> > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 13:51, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Igniters,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've prepared the issue [1] and PR [2] with removing @deprecate
> > > > annotation on DataRegionMetrics and adding @IgniteExperimental to the
> > > > new metrics API.
> > > > Can anyone review my changes?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12690
> > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7440
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 13:42, Ilya Kasnacheev 
> > > > 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello!
> > > > >
> > > > > I have just merged a fix for embarrassing issue where you could UPDATE
> > > > > entries with Spring Data, but not "Update" or "update" them.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suggest adding this fix to the scope of 2.8, since Spring Data is
> > > popular
> > > > > and it does not in any way affect code outside of its modules.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12672
> > > > >
> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > пн, 17 февр. 2020 г. в 12:44, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Alexey,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes. I will remove @deprecation according to the vote results and
> > > will
> > > > > > go further with the release steps [1] since there no blockers left.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 11:48, Alexey Goncharuk
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have merged IGNITE-12650 (mark MVCC as experimental) to master
> > > and
> > > > > > > ignite-2.8. What's left? Should we remove deprecation from the old
> > > > > > metrics
> > > > > > > and start the vote?
> > > > > >
> > >

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Denis,


Currently, we have no blockers. I'm preparing the build.

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 21:10, Denis Magda  wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Is there anything else apart from the open documentation tickets that
> prevent us from starting the release vote? I think that it should take
> around two weeks to run the release through the vote and announce it. The
> top doc changes should be finished throughout that time already.
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:55 AM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>
> > Ilya,
> >
> >
> > I think we must accept only blocker issues to the release branch.
> >
> > My previous experience tells me that even a small change which seems
> > absolutely easy and clear can break everything. So, let's move this
> > issue [1] to the next release. Currently, it doesn't look like a
> > blocker.
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12672
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 13:51, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
> > >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > >
> > > I've prepared the issue [1] and PR [2] with removing @deprecate
> > > annotation on DataRegionMetrics and adding @IgniteExperimental to the
> > > new metrics API.
> > > Can anyone review my changes?
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12690
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7440
> > >
> > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 13:42, Ilya Kasnacheev 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello!
> > > >
> > > > I have just merged a fix for embarrassing issue where you could UPDATE
> > > > entries with Spring Data, but not "Update" or "update" them.
> > > >
> > > > I suggest adding this fix to the scope of 2.8, since Spring Data is
> > popular
> > > > and it does not in any way affect code outside of its modules.
> > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12672
> > > >
> > > > WDYT?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > --
> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > пн, 17 февр. 2020 г. в 12:44, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > >
> > > > > Alexey,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. I will remove @deprecation according to the vote results and
> > will
> > > > > go further with the release steps [1] since there no blockers left.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 11:48, Alexey Goncharuk
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have merged IGNITE-12650 (mark MVCC as experimental) to master
> > and
> > > > > > ignite-2.8. What's left? Should we remove deprecation from the old
> > > > > metrics
> > > > > > and start the vote?
> > > > >
> >

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Denis Magda]

Folks,

Is there anything else apart from the open documentation tickets that
prevent us from starting the release vote? I think that it should take
around two weeks to run the release through the vote and announce it. The
top doc changes should be finished throughout that time already.

-
Denis


On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:55 AM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:

> Ilya,
>
>
> I think we must accept only blocker issues to the release branch.
>
> My previous experience tells me that even a small change which seems
> absolutely easy and clear can break everything. So, let's move this
> issue [1] to the next release. Currently, it doesn't look like a
> blocker.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12672
>
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 13:51, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
> >
> > Igniters,
> >
> >
> > I've prepared the issue [1] and PR [2] with removing @deprecate
> > annotation on DataRegionMetrics and adding @IgniteExperimental to the
> > new metrics API.
> > Can anyone review my changes?
> >
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12690
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7440
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 13:42, Ilya Kasnacheev 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > I have just merged a fix for embarrassing issue where you could UPDATE
> > > entries with Spring Data, but not "Update" or "update" them.
> > >
> > > I suggest adding this fix to the scope of 2.8, since Spring Data is
> popular
> > > and it does not in any way affect code outside of its modules.
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12672
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --
> > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > >
> > >
> > > пн, 17 февр. 2020 г. в 12:44, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > >
> > > > Alexey,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes. I will remove @deprecation according to the vote results and
> will
> > > > go further with the release steps [1] since there no blockers left.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 11:48, Alexey Goncharuk
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have merged IGNITE-12650 (mark MVCC as experimental) to master
> and
> > > > > ignite-2.8. What's left? Should we remove deprecation from the old
> > > > metrics
> > > > > and start the vote?
> > > >
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Ilya,


I think we must accept only blocker issues to the release branch.

My previous experience tells me that even a small change which seems
absolutely easy and clear can break everything. So, let's move this
issue [1] to the next release. Currently, it doesn't look like a
blocker.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12672

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 13:51, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>
> Igniters,
>
>
> I've prepared the issue [1] and PR [2] with removing @deprecate
> annotation on DataRegionMetrics and adding @IgniteExperimental to the
> new metrics API.
> Can anyone review my changes?
>
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12690
> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7440
>
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 13:42, Ilya Kasnacheev  
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello!
> >
> > I have just merged a fix for embarrassing issue where you could UPDATE
> > entries with Spring Data, but not "Update" or "update" them.
> >
> > I suggest adding this fix to the scope of 2.8, since Spring Data is popular
> > and it does not in any way affect code outside of its modules.
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12672
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> >
> > пн, 17 февр. 2020 г. в 12:44, Maxim Muzafarov :
> >
> > > Alexey,
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes. I will remove @deprecation according to the vote results and will
> > > go further with the release steps [1] since there no blockers left.
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process
> > >
> > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 11:48, Alexey Goncharuk
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > I have merged IGNITE-12650 (mark MVCC as experimental) to master and
> > > > ignite-2.8. What's left? Should we remove deprecation from the old
> > > metrics
> > > > and start the vote?
> > >

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Igniters,


I've prepared the issue [1] and PR [2] with removing @deprecate
annotation on DataRegionMetrics and adding @IgniteExperimental to the
new metrics API.
Can anyone review my changes?


[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12690
[2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7440

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 13:42, Ilya Kasnacheev  wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> I have just merged a fix for embarrassing issue where you could UPDATE
> entries with Spring Data, but not "Update" or "update" them.
>
> I suggest adding this fix to the scope of 2.8, since Spring Data is popular
> and it does not in any way affect code outside of its modules.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12672
>
> WDYT?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> пн, 17 февр. 2020 г. в 12:44, Maxim Muzafarov :
>
> > Alexey,
> >
> >
> > Yes. I will remove @deprecation according to the vote results and will
> > go further with the release steps [1] since there no blockers left.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process
> >
> > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 11:48, Alexey Goncharuk
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > I have merged IGNITE-12650 (mark MVCC as experimental) to master and
> > > ignite-2.8. What's left? Should we remove deprecation from the old
> > metrics
> > > and start the vote?
> >

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Ilya Kasnacheev]

Hello!

I have just merged a fix for embarrassing issue where you could UPDATE
entries with Spring Data, but not "Update" or "update" them.

I suggest adding this fix to the scope of 2.8, since Spring Data is popular
and it does not in any way affect code outside of its modules.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12672

WDYT?

Regards,
-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


пн, 17 февр. 2020 г. в 12:44, Maxim Muzafarov :

> Alexey,
>
>
> Yes. I will remove @deprecation according to the vote results and will
> go further with the release steps [1] since there no blockers left.
>
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process
>
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 11:48, Alexey Goncharuk
>  wrote:
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > I have merged IGNITE-12650 (mark MVCC as experimental) to master and
> > ignite-2.8. What's left? Should we remove deprecation from the old
> metrics
> > and start the vote?
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Alexey,


Yes. I will remove @deprecation according to the vote results and will
go further with the release steps [1] since there no blockers left.


[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process

On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 11:48, Alexey Goncharuk
 wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> I have merged IGNITE-12650 (mark MVCC as experimental) to master and
> ignite-2.8. What's left? Should we remove deprecation from the old metrics
> and start the vote?

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Alexey Goncharuk]

Folks,

I have merged IGNITE-12650 (mark MVCC as experimental) to master and
ignite-2.8. What's left? Should we remove deprecation from the old metrics
and start the vote?

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Denis Magda]

Maxim,

There are some of the tasks that are being moved from a release to a
release or exist for a while and might be skipped for 2.8 if nobody is
willing to document them. A could of examples of such tickets:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10331
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7704

How about preparing a list of the tickets that represent either a new
functionality added in 2.8 (new metrics, service grid improvements, etc.)
or change in behavior (it might be the case we need to update the baseline
topology or rebalancing pages)? Once we get the list, we'll find the names
of contributors and they will be able to cooperate with Artem who agreed to
assist with this effort.

The docs are needed before we announce the release and start bragging about
new capabilities.

-
Denis


On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 8:46 AM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:

> Denis,
>
> Actually, I've already filtered documentation issues previously and
> left only major documentation tasks. Should I shrink the list more?
>
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 18:58, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >
> > Maxim,
> >
> > Thanks for the list. How many of those tickets relate to new capabilities
> > or changed behavior in 2.8? You can probably come up with such a
> sub-list.
> > This filter returns all the documentation tickets we have in JIRA, and,
> > indeed, many of them can be pushed to further releases.
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 3:19 AM Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Denis,
> > >
> > >
> > > We still need additional work over the whole documentation, not only
> > > resolving comments for the new monitoring feature [2].
> > > Here is the full list of issues related to documentation - [1].
> > >
> > > Examples need to be extended too. For instance,
> > > - suspend/resume for pessimistic transactions
> > > - default Ignite work dir location (changed in 2.7.6 right?)
> > > - baseline auto-adjustment feature
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Unresolveddocumentationtasks
> > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12408
> > >
> > > On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 00:48, Denis Magda  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Maxim,
> > > >
> > > > Do you have any understanding in regards to documentation readiness?
> I do
> > > > remember Nikolay was creating a page for the new metrics framework
> and
> > > > Artem stepped in as a reviewer. But not sure if that supposedly the
> > > largest
> > > > item is completed and if the other pages need to be updated.
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 6:19 AM Maxim Muzafarov 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Current the 2.8 release status
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. The PR with RELEASE_NOTES fully updated [1].
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Previously mentioned performance drop has not been confirmed.
> Run
> > > > > many times in different environments. All test results within the
> > > > > margin of error.
> > > > > In-memory, putAll, 4 nodes, 1 client
> > > > > IgnitePutAllBenchmark: +1%
> > > > > IgnitePutAllTxBenchmark: -6%
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Waiting for the vote completion
> > > > > (Allow or prohibit a joint use of @deprecated and
> @IgniteExperimental)
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. Mark MVCC with IgniteExperimental [2].
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. Wait for ML examples to be fixed [3].
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
> > > > > [2]
> > > > >
> > >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Mark-MVCC-with-IgniteExperimental-td45669.html
> > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12657
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 15:08, Ivan Bessonov  >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Igniters,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to add one more fix to the release: [1]
> > > > > > It adds versioning to internal classes of distributed metastorage
> > > > > component.
> > > > > > Without this fix it would be much harder to update these classes
> > > without
> > > > > > breaking binary compatibility.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12638
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 22:33, Maxim Muzafarov  >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ivan,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Should not we state in release notes what new experimental
> API
> > > was
> > > > > added?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think we should. Will do.
> > > > > > > Just not to miss anything that we should mark with
> > > > > > > @IgniteExperimental: Consistency Check [1], Monitoring [2]
> anything
> > > > > > > else?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As Flink integration was moved to external repository how
> Ignite
> > > 2.8
> > > > > > > users will be able to use that integration?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since ignite-extension has a separate release cycle (right?),
> it is
> > > > > > > better to release ignite-extension rather than cherry-pick this
> > > 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Denis,

Actually, I've already filtered documentation issues previously and
left only major documentation tasks. Should I shrink the list more?

On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 18:58, Denis Magda  wrote:
>
> Maxim,
>
> Thanks for the list. How many of those tickets relate to new capabilities
> or changed behavior in 2.8? You can probably come up with such a sub-list.
> This filter returns all the documentation tickets we have in JIRA, and,
> indeed, many of them can be pushed to further releases.
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 3:19 AM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>
> > Denis,
> >
> >
> > We still need additional work over the whole documentation, not only
> > resolving comments for the new monitoring feature [2].
> > Here is the full list of issues related to documentation - [1].
> >
> > Examples need to be extended too. For instance,
> > - suspend/resume for pessimistic transactions
> > - default Ignite work dir location (changed in 2.7.6 right?)
> > - baseline auto-adjustment feature
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Unresolveddocumentationtasks
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12408
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 00:48, Denis Magda  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Maxim,
> > >
> > > Do you have any understanding in regards to documentation readiness? I do
> > > remember Nikolay was creating a page for the new metrics framework and
> > > Artem stepped in as a reviewer. But not sure if that supposedly the
> > largest
> > > item is completed and if the other pages need to be updated.
> > >
> > > -
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 6:19 AM Maxim Muzafarov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Igniters,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Current the 2.8 release status
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1. The PR with RELEASE_NOTES fully updated [1].
> > > >
> > > > 2. Previously mentioned performance drop has not been confirmed. Run
> > > > many times in different environments. All test results within the
> > > > margin of error.
> > > > In-memory, putAll, 4 nodes, 1 client
> > > > IgnitePutAllBenchmark: +1%
> > > > IgnitePutAllTxBenchmark: -6%
> > > >
> > > > 3. Waiting for the vote completion
> > > > (Allow or prohibit a joint use of @deprecated and @IgniteExperimental)
> > > >
> > > > 4. Mark MVCC with IgniteExperimental [2].
> > > >
> > > > 5. Wait for ML examples to be fixed [3].
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
> > > > [2]
> > > >
> > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Mark-MVCC-with-IgniteExperimental-td45669.html
> > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12657
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 15:08, Ivan Bessonov 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to add one more fix to the release: [1]
> > > > > It adds versioning to internal classes of distributed metastorage
> > > > component.
> > > > > Without this fix it would be much harder to update these classes
> > without
> > > > > breaking binary compatibility.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12638
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 22:33, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ivan,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Should not we state in release notes what new experimental API
> > was
> > > > added?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we should. Will do.
> > > > > > Just not to miss anything that we should mark with
> > > > > > @IgniteExperimental: Consistency Check [1], Monitoring [2] anything
> > > > > > else?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite
> > 2.8
> > > > > > users will be able to use that integration?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since ignite-extension has a separate release cycle (right?), it is
> > > > > > better to release ignite-extension rather than cherry-pick this
> > change
> > > > > > back to 2.8. I also think it is not a blocker for the release, but
> > we
> > > > > > should do our best make the first ignite-extension release as
> > earlier
> > > > > > as possible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663
> > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11848
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 22:07, Ivan Pavlukhin 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maxim,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A couple of questions:
> > > > > > > 1. We added an annotation to designate experimental API. Should
> > not
> > > > we
> > > > > > > state in release notes what new experimental API was added?
> > Perhaps
> > > > in
> > > > > > > a separate block.
> > > > > > > 2. As Flink integration was moved to external repository how
> > Ignite
> > > > > > > 2.8 users will be able to use that integration?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 21:21, Maxim Muzafarov  > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've prepared RELEASE_NOTES pull-request [1] to the 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Denis Magda]

Maxim,

Thanks for the list. How many of those tickets relate to new capabilities
or changed behavior in 2.8? You can probably come up with such a sub-list.
This filter returns all the documentation tickets we have in JIRA, and,
indeed, many of them can be pushed to further releases.

-
Denis


On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 3:19 AM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:

> Denis,
>
>
> We still need additional work over the whole documentation, not only
> resolving comments for the new monitoring feature [2].
> Here is the full list of issues related to documentation - [1].
>
> Examples need to be extended too. For instance,
> - suspend/resume for pessimistic transactions
> - default Ignite work dir location (changed in 2.7.6 right?)
> - baseline auto-adjustment feature
>
>
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Unresolveddocumentationtasks
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12408
>
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 00:48, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Maxim,
> >
> > Do you have any understanding in regards to documentation readiness? I do
> > remember Nikolay was creating a page for the new metrics framework and
> > Artem stepped in as a reviewer. But not sure if that supposedly the
> largest
> > item is completed and if the other pages need to be updated.
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 6:19 AM Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > >
> > > Current the 2.8 release status
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. The PR with RELEASE_NOTES fully updated [1].
> > >
> > > 2. Previously mentioned performance drop has not been confirmed. Run
> > > many times in different environments. All test results within the
> > > margin of error.
> > > In-memory, putAll, 4 nodes, 1 client
> > > IgnitePutAllBenchmark: +1%
> > > IgnitePutAllTxBenchmark: -6%
> > >
> > > 3. Waiting for the vote completion
> > > (Allow or prohibit a joint use of @deprecated and @IgniteExperimental)
> > >
> > > 4. Mark MVCC with IgniteExperimental [2].
> > >
> > > 5. Wait for ML examples to be fixed [3].
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
> > > [2]
> > >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Mark-MVCC-with-IgniteExperimental-td45669.html
> > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12657
> > >
> > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 15:08, Ivan Bessonov 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Igniters,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to add one more fix to the release: [1]
> > > > It adds versioning to internal classes of distributed metastorage
> > > component.
> > > > Without this fix it would be much harder to update these classes
> without
> > > > breaking binary compatibility.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12638
> > > >
> > > > ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 22:33, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > >
> > > > > Ivan,
> > > > >
> > > > > > Should not we state in release notes what new experimental API
> was
> > > added?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we should. Will do.
> > > > > Just not to miss anything that we should mark with
> > > > > @IgniteExperimental: Consistency Check [1], Monitoring [2] anything
> > > > > else?
> > > > >
> > > > > > As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite
> 2.8
> > > > > users will be able to use that integration?
> > > > >
> > > > > Since ignite-extension has a separate release cycle (right?), it is
> > > > > better to release ignite-extension rather than cherry-pick this
> change
> > > > > back to 2.8. I also think it is not a blocker for the release, but
> we
> > > > > should do our best make the first ignite-extension release as
> earlier
> > > > > as possible.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663
> > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11848
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 22:07, Ivan Pavlukhin 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maxim,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A couple of questions:
> > > > > > 1. We added an annotation to designate experimental API. Should
> not
> > > we
> > > > > > state in release notes what new experimental API was added?
> Perhaps
> > > in
> > > > > > a separate block.
> > > > > > 2. As Flink integration was moved to external repository how
> Ignite
> > > > > > 2.8 users will be able to use that integration?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 21:21, Maxim Muzafarov  >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've prepared RELEASE_NOTES pull-request [1] to the 2.8
> release.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Currently, IEP-35 monitoring issues are not included in this
> PR.
> > > Will
> > > > > > > do it soon.
> > > > > > > Please, take a look.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 14:38, Maxim Muzafarov <
> mmu...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Denis,


We still need additional work over the whole documentation, not only
resolving comments for the new monitoring feature [2].
Here is the full list of issues related to documentation - [1].

Examples need to be extended too. For instance,
- suspend/resume for pessimistic transactions
- default Ignite work dir location (changed in 2.7.6 right?)
- baseline auto-adjustment feature


[1] 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Unresolveddocumentationtasks
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12408

On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 00:48, Denis Magda  wrote:
>
> Hi Maxim,
>
> Do you have any understanding in regards to documentation readiness? I do
> remember Nikolay was creating a page for the new metrics framework and
> Artem stepped in as a reviewer. But not sure if that supposedly the largest
> item is completed and if the other pages need to be updated.
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 6:19 AM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> >
> > Current the 2.8 release status
> >
> >
> > 1. The PR with RELEASE_NOTES fully updated [1].
> >
> > 2. Previously mentioned performance drop has not been confirmed. Run
> > many times in different environments. All test results within the
> > margin of error.
> > In-memory, putAll, 4 nodes, 1 client
> > IgnitePutAllBenchmark: +1%
> > IgnitePutAllTxBenchmark: -6%
> >
> > 3. Waiting for the vote completion
> > (Allow or prohibit a joint use of @deprecated and @IgniteExperimental)
> >
> > 4. Mark MVCC with IgniteExperimental [2].
> >
> > 5. Wait for ML examples to be fixed [3].
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
> > [2]
> > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Mark-MVCC-with-IgniteExperimental-td45669.html
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12657
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 15:08, Ivan Bessonov  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Igniters,
> > >
> > > I'd like to add one more fix to the release: [1]
> > > It adds versioning to internal classes of distributed metastorage
> > component.
> > > Without this fix it would be much harder to update these classes without
> > > breaking binary compatibility.
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12638
> > >
> > > ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 22:33, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > >
> > > > Ivan,
> > > >
> > > > > Should not we state in release notes what new experimental API was
> > added?
> > > >
> > > > I think we should. Will do.
> > > > Just not to miss anything that we should mark with
> > > > @IgniteExperimental: Consistency Check [1], Monitoring [2] anything
> > > > else?
> > > >
> > > > > As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite 2.8
> > > > users will be able to use that integration?
> > > >
> > > > Since ignite-extension has a separate release cycle (right?), it is
> > > > better to release ignite-extension rather than cherry-pick this change
> > > > back to 2.8. I also think it is not a blocker for the release, but we
> > > > should do our best make the first ignite-extension release as earlier
> > > > as possible.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663
> > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11848
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 22:07, Ivan Pavlukhin 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Maxim,
> > > > >
> > > > > A couple of questions:
> > > > > 1. We added an annotation to designate experimental API. Should not
> > we
> > > > > state in release notes what new experimental API was added? Perhaps
> > in
> > > > > a separate block.
> > > > > 2. As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite
> > > > > 2.8 users will be able to use that integration?
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 21:21, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've prepared RELEASE_NOTES pull-request [1] to the 2.8 release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Currently, IEP-35 monitoring issues are not included in this PR.
> > Will
> > > > > > do it soon.
> > > > > > Please, take a look.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 14:38, Maxim Muzafarov 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let me share the current status of the release.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > > Waiting for the issues [1] [2] (discussed previously this
> > thread) to
> > > > > > > be tested by TC.Bot and merged to the 2.8 release branch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2.
> > > > > > > Only 2 release BLOCKER issues left. I'm planning to move these
> > issues
> > > > > > > to 2.8.1 release.
> > > > > > > The issue [4] (Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page
> > type)
> > > > > > > will be covered by [1] [2].
> > > > > > > The issue [3] (Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery)
> > Nodes
> > > > > > > getting down) probably require additional 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Denis Magda]

Hi Maxim,

Do you have any understanding in regards to documentation readiness? I do
remember Nikolay was creating a page for the new metrics framework and
Artem stepped in as a reviewer. But not sure if that supposedly the largest
item is completed and if the other pages need to be updated.

-
Denis


On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 6:19 AM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:

> Igniters,
>
>
> Current the 2.8 release status
>
>
> 1. The PR with RELEASE_NOTES fully updated [1].
>
> 2. Previously mentioned performance drop has not been confirmed. Run
> many times in different environments. All test results within the
> margin of error.
> In-memory, putAll, 4 nodes, 1 client
> IgnitePutAllBenchmark: +1%
> IgnitePutAllTxBenchmark: -6%
>
> 3. Waiting for the vote completion
> (Allow or prohibit a joint use of @deprecated and @IgniteExperimental)
>
> 4. Mark MVCC with IgniteExperimental [2].
>
> 5. Wait for ML examples to be fixed [3].
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
> [2]
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Mark-MVCC-with-IgniteExperimental-td45669.html
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12657
>
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 15:08, Ivan Bessonov  wrote:
> >
> > Hello Igniters,
> >
> > I'd like to add one more fix to the release: [1]
> > It adds versioning to internal classes of distributed metastorage
> component.
> > Without this fix it would be much harder to update these classes without
> > breaking binary compatibility.
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12638
> >
> > ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 22:33, Maxim Muzafarov :
> >
> > > Ivan,
> > >
> > > > Should not we state in release notes what new experimental API was
> added?
> > >
> > > I think we should. Will do.
> > > Just not to miss anything that we should mark with
> > > @IgniteExperimental: Consistency Check [1], Monitoring [2] anything
> > > else?
> > >
> > > > As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite 2.8
> > > users will be able to use that integration?
> > >
> > > Since ignite-extension has a separate release cycle (right?), it is
> > > better to release ignite-extension rather than cherry-pick this change
> > > back to 2.8. I also think it is not a blocker for the release, but we
> > > should do our best make the first ignite-extension release as earlier
> > > as possible.
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663
> > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11848
> > >
> > > On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 22:07, Ivan Pavlukhin 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maxim,
> > > >
> > > > A couple of questions:
> > > > 1. We added an annotation to designate experimental API. Should not
> we
> > > > state in release notes what new experimental API was added? Perhaps
> in
> > > > a separate block.
> > > > 2. As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite
> > > > 2.8 users will be able to use that integration?
> > > >
> > > > ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 21:21, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > > >
> > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I've prepared RELEASE_NOTES pull-request [1] to the 2.8 release.
> > > > >
> > > > > Currently, IEP-35 monitoring issues are not included in this PR.
> Will
> > > > > do it soon.
> > > > > Please, take a look.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 14:38, Maxim Muzafarov 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let me share the current status of the release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > Waiting for the issues [1] [2] (discussed previously this
> thread) to
> > > > > > be tested by TC.Bot and merged to the 2.8 release branch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2.
> > > > > > Only 2 release BLOCKER issues left. I'm planning to move these
> issues
> > > > > > to 2.8.1 release.
> > > > > > The issue [4] (Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page
> type)
> > > > > > will be covered by [1] [2].
> > > > > > The issue [3] (Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery)
> Nodes
> > > > > > getting down) probably require additional info to reproduce the
> > > issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3.
> > > > > > A potential performance drop on `putAll` operations on an
> in-memory
> > > > > > cluster (see [5] for details).
> > > > > > I'll try to reproduce in another test environment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Will keep you posted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12593
> > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12594
> > > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > > > > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > > > > > [5]
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks(LATEST)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:02, Alexey Goncharuk
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sounds good, will do!
> > 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Alexey Zinoviev]

All ML bugs are fixed, tested on TC and merged to 2.8 release branch.
Hope I'm not a blocker man now.



вт, 11 февр. 2020 г. в 17:23, Alexey Zinoviev :

> Hello, Igniters
>
> Stepan found and reported bug related to lambda
> serialization/deserialization
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12657
> The problem is the next: the ParamGrid object has a lambda in interface
> and this is an very bad for ML component, I've created a blocker bug
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12660
>
> Also as a result of good testing from both side (from me and Stepan) we
> found a lot of bugs and CVEs in hadoop related components that should be
> removed in release branch too.
>
> I'll notify then it will be finished
>
> Will work hardly on these bugs.
>
>
>
> вт, 11 февр. 2020 г. в 15:08, Ivan Bessonov :
>
>> Hello Igniters,
>>
>> I'd like to add one more fix to the release: [1]
>> It adds versioning to internal classes of distributed metastorage
>> component.
>> Without this fix it would be much harder to update these classes without
>> breaking binary compatibility.
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12638
>>
>> ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 22:33, Maxim Muzafarov :
>>
>> > Ivan,
>> >
>> > > Should not we state in release notes what new experimental API was
>> added?
>> >
>> > I think we should. Will do.
>> > Just not to miss anything that we should mark with
>> > @IgniteExperimental: Consistency Check [1], Monitoring [2] anything
>> > else?
>> >
>> > > As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite 2.8
>> > users will be able to use that integration?
>> >
>> > Since ignite-extension has a separate release cycle (right?), it is
>> > better to release ignite-extension rather than cherry-pick this change
>> > back to 2.8. I also think it is not a blocker for the release, but we
>> > should do our best make the first ignite-extension release as earlier
>> > as possible.
>> >
>> >
>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663
>> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11848
>> >
>> > On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 22:07, Ivan Pavlukhin 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Maxim,
>> > >
>> > > A couple of questions:
>> > > 1. We added an annotation to designate experimental API. Should not we
>> > > state in release notes what new experimental API was added? Perhaps in
>> > > a separate block.
>> > > 2. As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite
>> > > 2.8 users will be able to use that integration?
>> > >
>> > > ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 21:21, Maxim Muzafarov :
>> > > >
>> > > > Igniters,
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I've prepared RELEASE_NOTES pull-request [1] to the 2.8 release.
>> > > >
>> > > > Currently, IEP-35 monitoring issues are not included in this PR.
>> Will
>> > > > do it soon.
>> > > > Please, take a look.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 14:38, Maxim Muzafarov 
>> > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Igniters,
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Let me share the current status of the release.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 1.
>> > > > > Waiting for the issues [1] [2] (discussed previously this thread)
>> to
>> > > > > be tested by TC.Bot and merged to the 2.8 release branch.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 2.
>> > > > > Only 2 release BLOCKER issues left. I'm planning to move these
>> issues
>> > > > > to 2.8.1 release.
>> > > > > The issue [4] (Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page
>> type)
>> > > > > will be covered by [1] [2].
>> > > > > The issue [3] (Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery)
>> Nodes
>> > > > > getting down) probably require additional info to reproduce the
>> > issue.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 3.
>> > > > > A potential performance drop on `putAll` operations on an
>> in-memory
>> > > > > cluster (see [5] for details).
>> > > > > I'll try to reproduce in another test environment.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Will keep you posted.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12593
>> > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12594
>> > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
>> > > > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
>> > > > > [5]
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks(LATEST)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:02, Alexey Goncharuk
>> > > > >  wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Sounds good, will do!
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Best regards,
>> > > Ivan Pavlukhin
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sincerely yours,
>> Ivan Bessonov
>>
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Alexey Zinoviev]

Hello, Igniters

Stepan found and reported bug related to lambda
serialization/deserialization
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12657
The problem is the next: the ParamGrid object has a lambda in interface and
this is an very bad for ML component, I've created a blocker bug
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12660

Also as a result of good testing from both side (from me and Stepan) we
found a lot of bugs and CVEs in hadoop related components that should be
removed in release branch too.

I'll notify then it will be finished

Will work hardly on these bugs.



вт, 11 февр. 2020 г. в 15:08, Ivan Bessonov :

> Hello Igniters,
>
> I'd like to add one more fix to the release: [1]
> It adds versioning to internal classes of distributed metastorage
> component.
> Without this fix it would be much harder to update these classes without
> breaking binary compatibility.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12638
>
> ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 22:33, Maxim Muzafarov :
>
> > Ivan,
> >
> > > Should not we state in release notes what new experimental API was
> added?
> >
> > I think we should. Will do.
> > Just not to miss anything that we should mark with
> > @IgniteExperimental: Consistency Check [1], Monitoring [2] anything
> > else?
> >
> > > As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite 2.8
> > users will be able to use that integration?
> >
> > Since ignite-extension has a separate release cycle (right?), it is
> > better to release ignite-extension rather than cherry-pick this change
> > back to 2.8. I also think it is not a blocker for the release, but we
> > should do our best make the first ignite-extension release as earlier
> > as possible.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11848
> >
> > On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 22:07, Ivan Pavlukhin  wrote:
> > >
> > > Maxim,
> > >
> > > A couple of questions:
> > > 1. We added an annotation to designate experimental API. Should not we
> > > state in release notes what new experimental API was added? Perhaps in
> > > a separate block.
> > > 2. As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite
> > > 2.8 users will be able to use that integration?
> > >
> > > ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 21:21, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > >
> > > > Igniters,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've prepared RELEASE_NOTES pull-request [1] to the 2.8 release.
> > > >
> > > > Currently, IEP-35 monitoring issues are not included in this PR. Will
> > > > do it soon.
> > > > Please, take a look.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 14:38, Maxim Muzafarov 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me share the current status of the release.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1.
> > > > > Waiting for the issues [1] [2] (discussed previously this thread)
> to
> > > > > be tested by TC.Bot and merged to the 2.8 release branch.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2.
> > > > > Only 2 release BLOCKER issues left. I'm planning to move these
> issues
> > > > > to 2.8.1 release.
> > > > > The issue [4] (Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page
> type)
> > > > > will be covered by [1] [2].
> > > > > The issue [3] (Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery)
> Nodes
> > > > > getting down) probably require additional info to reproduce the
> > issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3.
> > > > > A potential performance drop on `putAll` operations on an in-memory
> > > > > cluster (see [5] for details).
> > > > > I'll try to reproduce in another test environment.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Will keep you posted.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12593
> > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12594
> > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > > > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > > > > [5]
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks(LATEST)
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:02, Alexey Goncharuk
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds good, will do!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >
>
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Ivan Bessonov
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Igniters,


Current the 2.8 release status


1. The PR with RELEASE_NOTES fully updated [1].

2. Previously mentioned performance drop has not been confirmed. Run
many times in different environments. All test results within the
margin of error.
In-memory, putAll, 4 nodes, 1 client
IgnitePutAllBenchmark: +1%
IgnitePutAllTxBenchmark: -6%

3. Waiting for the vote completion
(Allow or prohibit a joint use of @deprecated and @IgniteExperimental)

4. Mark MVCC with IgniteExperimental [2].

5. Wait for ML examples to be fixed [3].

[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
[2] 
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Mark-MVCC-with-IgniteExperimental-td45669.html
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12657

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 15:08, Ivan Bessonov  wrote:
>
> Hello Igniters,
>
> I'd like to add one more fix to the release: [1]
> It adds versioning to internal classes of distributed metastorage component.
> Without this fix it would be much harder to update these classes without
> breaking binary compatibility.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12638
>
> ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 22:33, Maxim Muzafarov :
>
> > Ivan,
> >
> > > Should not we state in release notes what new experimental API was added?
> >
> > I think we should. Will do.
> > Just not to miss anything that we should mark with
> > @IgniteExperimental: Consistency Check [1], Monitoring [2] anything
> > else?
> >
> > > As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite 2.8
> > users will be able to use that integration?
> >
> > Since ignite-extension has a separate release cycle (right?), it is
> > better to release ignite-extension rather than cherry-pick this change
> > back to 2.8. I also think it is not a blocker for the release, but we
> > should do our best make the first ignite-extension release as earlier
> > as possible.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11848
> >
> > On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 22:07, Ivan Pavlukhin  wrote:
> > >
> > > Maxim,
> > >
> > > A couple of questions:
> > > 1. We added an annotation to designate experimental API. Should not we
> > > state in release notes what new experimental API was added? Perhaps in
> > > a separate block.
> > > 2. As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite
> > > 2.8 users will be able to use that integration?
> > >
> > > ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 21:21, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > >
> > > > Igniters,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've prepared RELEASE_NOTES pull-request [1] to the 2.8 release.
> > > >
> > > > Currently, IEP-35 monitoring issues are not included in this PR. Will
> > > > do it soon.
> > > > Please, take a look.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 14:38, Maxim Muzafarov 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me share the current status of the release.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1.
> > > > > Waiting for the issues [1] [2] (discussed previously this thread) to
> > > > > be tested by TC.Bot and merged to the 2.8 release branch.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2.
> > > > > Only 2 release BLOCKER issues left. I'm planning to move these issues
> > > > > to 2.8.1 release.
> > > > > The issue [4] (Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type)
> > > > > will be covered by [1] [2].
> > > > > The issue [3] (Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
> > > > > getting down) probably require additional info to reproduce the
> > issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3.
> > > > > A potential performance drop on `putAll` operations on an in-memory
> > > > > cluster (see [5] for details).
> > > > > I'll try to reproduce in another test environment.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Will keep you posted.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12593
> > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12594
> > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > > > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > > > > [5]
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks(LATEST)
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:02, Alexey Goncharuk
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds good, will do!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >
>
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Ivan Bessonov

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Ivan Bessonov]

Hello Igniters,

I'd like to add one more fix to the release: [1]
It adds versioning to internal classes of distributed metastorage component.
Without this fix it would be much harder to update these classes without
breaking binary compatibility.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12638

ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 22:33, Maxim Muzafarov :

> Ivan,
>
> > Should not we state in release notes what new experimental API was added?
>
> I think we should. Will do.
> Just not to miss anything that we should mark with
> @IgniteExperimental: Consistency Check [1], Monitoring [2] anything
> else?
>
> > As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite 2.8
> users will be able to use that integration?
>
> Since ignite-extension has a separate release cycle (right?), it is
> better to release ignite-extension rather than cherry-pick this change
> back to 2.8. I also think it is not a blocker for the release, but we
> should do our best make the first ignite-extension release as earlier
> as possible.
>
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11848
>
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 22:07, Ivan Pavlukhin  wrote:
> >
> > Maxim,
> >
> > A couple of questions:
> > 1. We added an annotation to designate experimental API. Should not we
> > state in release notes what new experimental API was added? Perhaps in
> > a separate block.
> > 2. As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite
> > 2.8 users will be able to use that integration?
> >
> > ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 21:21, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > >
> > > I've prepared RELEASE_NOTES pull-request [1] to the 2.8 release.
> > >
> > > Currently, IEP-35 monitoring issues are not included in this PR. Will
> > > do it soon.
> > > Please, take a look.
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
> > >
> > > On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 14:38, Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Igniters,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Let me share the current status of the release.
> > > >
> > > > 1.
> > > > Waiting for the issues [1] [2] (discussed previously this thread) to
> > > > be tested by TC.Bot and merged to the 2.8 release branch.
> > > >
> > > > 2.
> > > > Only 2 release BLOCKER issues left. I'm planning to move these issues
> > > > to 2.8.1 release.
> > > > The issue [4] (Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type)
> > > > will be covered by [1] [2].
> > > > The issue [3] (Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
> > > > getting down) probably require additional info to reproduce the
> issue.
> > > >
> > > > 3.
> > > > A potential performance drop on `putAll` operations on an in-memory
> > > > cluster (see [5] for details).
> > > > I'll try to reproduce in another test environment.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Will keep you posted.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12593
> > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12594
> > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > > > [5]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks(LATEST)
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:02, Alexey Goncharuk
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds good, will do!
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Ivan Pavlukhin
>


-- 
Sincerely yours,
Ivan Bessonov

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Ivan,

> Should not we state in release notes what new experimental API was added?

I think we should. Will do.
Just not to miss anything that we should mark with
@IgniteExperimental: Consistency Check [1], Monitoring [2] anything
else?

> As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite 2.8 users 
> will be able to use that integration?

Since ignite-extension has a separate release cycle (right?), it is
better to release ignite-extension rather than cherry-pick this change
back to 2.8. I also think it is not a blocker for the release, but we
should do our best make the first ignite-extension release as earlier
as possible.


[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10663
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11848

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 22:07, Ivan Pavlukhin  wrote:
>
> Maxim,
>
> A couple of questions:
> 1. We added an annotation to designate experimental API. Should not we
> state in release notes what new experimental API was added? Perhaps in
> a separate block.
> 2. As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite
> 2.8 users will be able to use that integration?
>
> ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 21:21, Maxim Muzafarov :
> >
> > Igniters,
> >
> >
> > I've prepared RELEASE_NOTES pull-request [1] to the 2.8 release.
> >
> > Currently, IEP-35 monitoring issues are not included in this PR. Will
> > do it soon.
> > Please, take a look.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
> >
> > On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 14:38, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
> > >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > >
> > > Let me share the current status of the release.
> > >
> > > 1.
> > > Waiting for the issues [1] [2] (discussed previously this thread) to
> > > be tested by TC.Bot and merged to the 2.8 release branch.
> > >
> > > 2.
> > > Only 2 release BLOCKER issues left. I'm planning to move these issues
> > > to 2.8.1 release.
> > > The issue [4] (Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type)
> > > will be covered by [1] [2].
> > > The issue [3] (Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
> > > getting down) probably require additional info to reproduce the issue.
> > >
> > > 3.
> > > A potential performance drop on `putAll` operations on an in-memory
> > > cluster (see [5] for details).
> > > I'll try to reproduce in another test environment.
> > >
> > >
> > > Will keep you posted.
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12593
> > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12594
> > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > > [5] 
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks(LATEST)
> > >
> > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:02, Alexey Goncharuk
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sounds good, will do!
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Ivan Pavlukhin]

Maxim,

A couple of questions:
1. We added an annotation to designate experimental API. Should not we
state in release notes what new experimental API was added? Perhaps in
a separate block.
2. As Flink integration was moved to external repository how Ignite
2.8 users will be able to use that integration?

ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 21:21, Maxim Muzafarov :
>
> Igniters,
>
>
> I've prepared RELEASE_NOTES pull-request [1] to the 2.8 release.
>
> Currently, IEP-35 monitoring issues are not included in this PR. Will
> do it soon.
> Please, take a look.
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files
>
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 14:38, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
> >
> > Igniters,
> >
> >
> > Let me share the current status of the release.
> >
> > 1.
> > Waiting for the issues [1] [2] (discussed previously this thread) to
> > be tested by TC.Bot and merged to the 2.8 release branch.
> >
> > 2.
> > Only 2 release BLOCKER issues left. I'm planning to move these issues
> > to 2.8.1 release.
> > The issue [4] (Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type)
> > will be covered by [1] [2].
> > The issue [3] (Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
> > getting down) probably require additional info to reproduce the issue.
> >
> > 3.
> > A potential performance drop on `putAll` operations on an in-memory
> > cluster (see [5] for details).
> > I'll try to reproduce in another test environment.
> >
> >
> > Will keep you posted.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12593
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12594
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > [5] 
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks(LATEST)
> >
> > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:02, Alexey Goncharuk
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds good, will do!



-- 
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Igniters,


I've prepared RELEASE_NOTES pull-request [1] to the 2.8 release.

Currently, IEP-35 monitoring issues are not included in this PR. Will
do it soon.
Please, take a look.


[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7367/files

On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 14:38, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>
> Igniters,
>
>
> Let me share the current status of the release.
>
> 1.
> Waiting for the issues [1] [2] (discussed previously this thread) to
> be tested by TC.Bot and merged to the 2.8 release branch.
>
> 2.
> Only 2 release BLOCKER issues left. I'm planning to move these issues
> to 2.8.1 release.
> The issue [4] (Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type)
> will be covered by [1] [2].
> The issue [3] (Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
> getting down) probably require additional info to reproduce the issue.
>
> 3.
> A potential performance drop on `putAll` operations on an in-memory
> cluster (see [5] for details).
> I'll try to reproduce in another test environment.
>
>
> Will keep you posted.
>
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12593
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12594
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> [5] 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks(LATEST)
>
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:02, Alexey Goncharuk
>  wrote:
> >
> > Sounds good, will do!

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Igniters,


Let me share the current status of the release.

1.
Waiting for the issues [1] [2] (discussed previously this thread) to
be tested by TC.Bot and merged to the 2.8 release branch.

2.
Only 2 release BLOCKER issues left. I'm planning to move these issues
to 2.8.1 release.
The issue [4] (Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type)
will be covered by [1] [2].
The issue [3] (Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
getting down) probably require additional info to reproduce the issue.

3.
A potential performance drop on `putAll` operations on an in-memory
cluster (see [5] for details).
I'll try to reproduce in another test environment.


Will keep you posted.


[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12593
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12594
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
[4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
[5] 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks(LATEST)

On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:02, Alexey Goncharuk
 wrote:
>
> Sounds good, will do!

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Alexey Goncharuk]

Sounds good, will do!

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Alexey,


Let's merge these issues [1] [2] to the master branch first and wait
for a couple of days to collect test statistics.

My fears based on the fact not getting new regression flaky failures
for the release branch as we've got here [3] [4].


[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12593
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12594
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
[4] 
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/MTCGA-new-failures-in-builds-4939116-needs-to-be-handled-td45199.html



On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 14:45, Alexey Goncharuk
 wrote:
>
> Anton, thanks, the changes and suggestion look good to me.
>
> Maxim, folks, do you mind if I cherry-pick the changes to ignite-2.8 and
> move the original ticket to 2.9?
>
> чт, 30 янв. 2020 г. в 13:16, Anton Kalashnikov :
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I spent some time investigating IGNITE-12489
> > , but unfortunately,
> > there are not enough details on the ticket. Also, all reproducers, which I
> > have now, able to reproduce a couple of other problems(IGNITE-12593
> > , IGNITE-12594
> > ) but not a source
> > one.
> >
> > I offer the following actions:
> > 1) Moving IGNITE-12489 to 2.9 due to we still don't have the reproducer,
> > also we don't have details enough of this corruption and there is a
> > high possibility that it has already fixed by other tickets(we have several
> > tickets with corruption fix in 2.8)
> > 2) Adding above mention tickets(IGNITE-12593, IGNITE-12594) to 2.8. They
> > have been already finished and if the review is ok we can merge it today.
> > This fixes also possible can fix  IGNITE-12489 due to they were reproduced
> > by the reproducer of this ticket.
> >
> > Alexey Goncharuk, can you take a look at IGNITE-12593 and IGNITE-12594,
> > please.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Anton Kalashnikov
> >
> >
> >
> > 30.01.2020, 12:40, "Alexey Goncharuk" :
> >
> > Maxim,
> >
> > I received no updates from the IGNITE-12456 reporter and from the ticket
> > description it does not look like a corruption, so I'm moving this ticket
> > to 2.9 (or 2.8.1 if it will be required).
> >
> > Anton,
> >
> > Do you have any updates on IGNITE-12489?
> >
> > вт, 28 янв. 2020 г. в 19:29, Maxim Muzafarov :
> >
> > Igniters,
> >
> >
> > Here is the list of actual release BLOCKER issues:
> >
> > [1] Keep in mind unfinished discussion about internal classes
> > IGNITE-12456 [2] Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
> > *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes getting
> > down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] IN PROGRESS
> > IGNITE-12580 NPE in GridMetricManager [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type [Anton
> > Kalashnikov] OPEN
> >
> > [1]
> >
> > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Internal-classes-are-exposed-in-public-API-td45146.html
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12580
> > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:25, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
> >
> > > Andrey,
> > >
> > > I've looked through those changes [1] and now they look good to me.
> > > Let's do the following:
> > >
> > > 1. Get a fresh TC.Bot visa
> > > 2. Merge these changes to the master branch.
> > > 3. After that and 3-day stabilization cherry-pick to 2.8
> > >
> > > Should we wait for benchmarks? I think at this release stage any
> > > additional benchmarks can eliminate our risks with extending scope.
> > > We've already had one - [2] (2.7.6 compared to 2.8).
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> > > [2]
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
> > >
> > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:58, Nikolay Izhikov 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Andrey.
> > > >
> > > > > My choice: correctness over performance
> > > >
> > > > I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
> > > > It seems we can got both.
> > > >
> > > > > May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we
> > don't
> > > have benchmark results
> > > >
> > > > I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of
> > > TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
> > > > Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t bring
> > any
> > > performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.
> > > >
> > > > I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
> > > > Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.
> > > >
> > > > > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> > > > >
> > > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Alexey Goncharuk]

Maxim,

I received no updates from the IGNITE-12456 reporter and from the ticket
description it does not look like a corruption, so I'm moving this ticket
to 2.9 (or 2.8.1 if it will be required).

Anton,

Do you have any updates on IGNITE-12489?

вт, 28 янв. 2020 г. в 19:29, Maxim Muzafarov :

> Igniters,
>
>
> Here is the list of actual release BLOCKER issues:
>
> [1] Keep in mind unfinished discussion about internal classes
> IGNITE-12456 [2] Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes getting
> down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] IN PROGRESS
> IGNITE-12580 NPE in GridMetricManager [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type [Anton
> Kalashnikov] OPEN
>
> [1]
>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Internal-classes-are-exposed-in-public-API-td45146.html
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12580
> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:25, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>
> > Andrey,
> >
> > I've looked through those changes [1] and now they look good to me.
> > Let's do the following:
> >
> > 1. Get a fresh TC.Bot visa
> > 2. Merge these changes to the master branch.
> > 3. After that and 3-day stabilization cherry-pick to 2.8
> >
> > Should we wait for benchmarks? I think at this release stage any
> > additional benchmarks can eliminate our risks with extending scope.
> > We've already had one - [2] (2.7.6 compared to 2.8).
> >
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> > [2]
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:58, Nikolay Izhikov 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrey.
> > >
> > > > My choice: correctness over performance
> > >
> > > I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
> > > It seems we can got both.
> > >
> > > > May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we
> don't
> > have benchmark results
> > >
> > > I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of
> > TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
> > > Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t bring
> any
> > performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.
> > >
> > > I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
> > > Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.
> > >
> > > > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> > > >
> > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of
> > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably affect
> > > > performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback all
> > > > metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&
> > > >
> > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free
> servers
> > to do it.
> > > >
> > > > I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current behavior
> is
> > > > incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.
> > > >
> > > > Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is more
> > > > important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.
> > > >
> > > > My choice: correctness over performance.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhi...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag to
> > TcpCommunicationSpi.
> > > >>
> > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of
> > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> > > >>
> > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free
> servers
> > to do it.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura 
> написал(а):
> > > >>>
> > > > "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work."
> > (c)
> > >  Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> > >  Are there any unresolved bugs?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or analyzed
> > > >>> retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart. It's
> > bug.
> > > >>>
> > > > User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> > >  Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release
> nor
> > in current master so we should change this code carefully
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by adding
> > > >>> metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhi...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Ilya,


+1 to disable auto-adjustment by default
It seems the same approach can be used as implemented for disabling
pme-free [1].

[1] https://jira.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470

On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 20:16, Ilya Kasnacheev 
wrote:

> Hello!
>
> Actually, it seems to me that such scenario "Joining persistence node to
> in-memory cluster" is not really supported in either 2.7.6 or 2.8.
>
> I suggest disabling it for good. What do you think? Nobody ever told us
> that it is broken, we can assume noone ever wanted that. We have no test
> coverage for it.
>
> Still, I think that baseline auto-adjust should not be enabled by default,
> since it is not configurable via IgniteConfiguration.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> ср, 29 янв. 2020 г. в 16:14, Ilya Kasnacheev :
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > I have just promoted https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12504
> > to Blocker.
> >
> > The reasoning for this, you can't seem to configure baseline auto-adjust
> > until your node is up (there is no configuration for this), and it will
> > refuse nodes joining outright with default configuration, making it
> > impossible to assemble some clusters. I will file a separate ticket about
> > that.
> >
> > "Caused by: class org.apache.ignite.spi.IgniteSpiException: Joining
> > persistence node to in-memory cluster couldn't be allowed due to baseline
> > auto-adjust is enabled and timeout equal to 0"
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> >
> > ср, 29 янв. 2020 г. в 14:33, Andrey Gura :
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> one more issue which should be fixed in 2.8 release [1]
> >>
> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12598
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:29 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Igniters,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Here is the list of actual release BLOCKER issues:
> >> >
> >> > [1] Keep in mind unfinished discussion about internal classes
> >> > IGNITE-12456 [2] Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
> >> > *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> >> > IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
> >> getting
> >> > down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] IN PROGRESS
> >> > IGNITE-12580 NPE in GridMetricManager [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH
> AVAILABLE
> >> > IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type
> [Anton
> >> > Kalashnikov] OPEN
> >> >
> >> > [1]
> >> >
> >>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Internal-classes-are-exposed-in-public-API-td45146.html
> >> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> >> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> >> > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12580
> >> > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:25, Maxim Muzafarov 
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Andrey,
> >> > >
> >> > > I've looked through those changes [1] and now they look good to me.
> >> > > Let's do the following:
> >> > >
> >> > > 1. Get a fresh TC.Bot visa
> >> > > 2. Merge these changes to the master branch.
> >> > > 3. After that and 3-day stabilization cherry-pick to 2.8
> >> > >
> >> > > Should we wait for benchmarks? I think at this release stage any
> >> > > additional benchmarks can eliminate our risks with extending scope.
> >> > > We've already had one - [2] (2.7.6 compared to 2.8).
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> >> > > [2]
> >> > >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:58, Nikolay Izhikov 
> >> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Andrey.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > My choice: correctness over performance
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
> >> > > > It seems we can got both.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we
> >> don't
> >> > > have benchmark results
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of
> >> > > TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
> >> > > > Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t
> >> bring any
> >> > > performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
> >> > > > Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura 
> >> написал(а):
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the
> performance
> >> of
> >> > > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> >> > > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably
> affect
> >> > > > > performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback
> >> all
> >> > > > > metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> I can help to run 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Ilya Kasnacheev]

Hello!

Actually, it seems to me that such scenario "Joining persistence node to
in-memory cluster" is not really supported in either 2.7.6 or 2.8.

I suggest disabling it for good. What do you think? Nobody ever told us
that it is broken, we can assume noone ever wanted that. We have no test
coverage for it.

Still, I think that baseline auto-adjust should not be enabled by default,
since it is not configurable via IgniteConfiguration.

Regards,
-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


ср, 29 янв. 2020 г. в 16:14, Ilya Kasnacheev :

> Hello!
>
> I have just promoted https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12504
> to Blocker.
>
> The reasoning for this, you can't seem to configure baseline auto-adjust
> until your node is up (there is no configuration for this), and it will
> refuse nodes joining outright with default configuration, making it
> impossible to assemble some clusters. I will file a separate ticket about
> that.
>
> "Caused by: class org.apache.ignite.spi.IgniteSpiException: Joining
> persistence node to in-memory cluster couldn't be allowed due to baseline
> auto-adjust is enabled and timeout equal to 0"
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> ср, 29 янв. 2020 г. в 14:33, Andrey Gura :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> one more issue which should be fixed in 2.8 release [1]
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12598
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:29 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Igniters,
>> >
>> >
>> > Here is the list of actual release BLOCKER issues:
>> >
>> > [1] Keep in mind unfinished discussion about internal classes
>> > IGNITE-12456 [2] Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
>> > *[Unassigned]* OPEN
>> > IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
>> getting
>> > down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] IN PROGRESS
>> > IGNITE-12580 NPE in GridMetricManager [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
>> > IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type [Anton
>> > Kalashnikov] OPEN
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Internal-classes-are-exposed-in-public-API-td45146.html
>> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
>> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
>> > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12580
>> > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:25, Maxim Muzafarov 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Andrey,
>> > >
>> > > I've looked through those changes [1] and now they look good to me.
>> > > Let's do the following:
>> > >
>> > > 1. Get a fresh TC.Bot visa
>> > > 2. Merge these changes to the master branch.
>> > > 3. After that and 3-day stabilization cherry-pick to 2.8
>> > >
>> > > Should we wait for benchmarks? I think at this release stage any
>> > > additional benchmarks can eliminate our risks with extending scope.
>> > > We've already had one - [2] (2.7.6 compared to 2.8).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
>> > > [2]
>> > >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:58, Nikolay Izhikov 
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Andrey.
>> > > >
>> > > > > My choice: correctness over performance
>> > > >
>> > > > I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
>> > > > It seems we can got both.
>> > > >
>> > > > > May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we
>> don't
>> > > have benchmark results
>> > > >
>> > > > I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of
>> > > TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
>> > > > Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t
>> bring any
>> > > performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.
>> > > >
>> > > > I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
>> > > > Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.
>> > > >
>> > > > > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura 
>> написал(а):
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance
>> of
>> > > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
>> > > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably affect
>> > > > > performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback
>> all
>> > > > > metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free
>> servers
>> > > to do it.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current
>> behavior is
>> > > > > incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is more
>> > > > > important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > My choice: correctness over performance.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Ilya Kasnacheev]

Hello!

I have just promoted https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12504 to
Blocker.

The reasoning for this, you can't seem to configure baseline auto-adjust
until your node is up (there is no configuration for this), and it will
refuse nodes joining outright with default configuration, making it
impossible to assemble some clusters. I will file a separate ticket about
that.

"Caused by: class org.apache.ignite.spi.IgniteSpiException: Joining
persistence node to in-memory cluster couldn't be allowed due to baseline
auto-adjust is enabled and timeout equal to 0"

Regards,
-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


ср, 29 янв. 2020 г. в 14:33, Andrey Gura :

> Hi,
>
> one more issue which should be fixed in 2.8 release [1]
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12598
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:29 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
> >
> > Igniters,
> >
> >
> > Here is the list of actual release BLOCKER issues:
> >
> > [1] Keep in mind unfinished discussion about internal classes
> > IGNITE-12456 [2] Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
> > *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
> getting
> > down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] IN PROGRESS
> > IGNITE-12580 NPE in GridMetricManager [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type [Anton
> > Kalashnikov] OPEN
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Internal-classes-are-exposed-in-public-API-td45146.html
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12580
> > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:25, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
> >
> > > Andrey,
> > >
> > > I've looked through those changes [1] and now they look good to me.
> > > Let's do the following:
> > >
> > > 1. Get a fresh TC.Bot visa
> > > 2. Merge these changes to the master branch.
> > > 3. After that and 3-day stabilization cherry-pick to 2.8
> > >
> > > Should we wait for benchmarks? I think at this release stage any
> > > additional benchmarks can eliminate our risks with extending scope.
> > > We've already had one - [2] (2.7.6 compared to 2.8).
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> > > [2]
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
> > >
> > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:58, Nikolay Izhikov 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Andrey.
> > > >
> > > > > My choice: correctness over performance
> > > >
> > > > I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
> > > > It seems we can got both.
> > > >
> > > > > May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we
> don't
> > > have benchmark results
> > > >
> > > > I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of
> > > TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
> > > > Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t bring
> any
> > > performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.
> > > >
> > > > I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
> > > > Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.
> > > >
> > > > > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura 
> написал(а):
> > > > >
> > > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance
> of
> > > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> > > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably affect
> > > > > performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback
> all
> > > > > metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&
> > > > >
> > > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free
> servers
> > > to do it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current
> behavior is
> > > > > incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is more
> > > > > important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.
> > > > >
> > > > > My choice: correctness over performance.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhi...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag to
> > > TcpCommunicationSpi.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance
> of
> > > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> > > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free
> servers
> > > to do it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura 
> написал(а):
> > > > >>>
> > > > > "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t
> work."
> 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Andrey Gura]

Hi,

one more issue which should be fixed in 2.8 release [1]

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12598

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:29 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>
> Igniters,
>
>
> Here is the list of actual release BLOCKER issues:
>
> [1] Keep in mind unfinished discussion about internal classes
> IGNITE-12456 [2] Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
> *[Unassigned]* OPEN
> IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes getting
> down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] IN PROGRESS
> IGNITE-12580 NPE in GridMetricManager [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type [Anton
> Kalashnikov] OPEN
>
> [1]
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Internal-classes-are-exposed-in-public-API-td45146.html
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12580
> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:25, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>
> > Andrey,
> >
> > I've looked through those changes [1] and now they look good to me.
> > Let's do the following:
> >
> > 1. Get a fresh TC.Bot visa
> > 2. Merge these changes to the master branch.
> > 3. After that and 3-day stabilization cherry-pick to 2.8
> >
> > Should we wait for benchmarks? I think at this release stage any
> > additional benchmarks can eliminate our risks with extending scope.
> > We've already had one - [2] (2.7.6 compared to 2.8).
> >
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> > [2]
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:58, Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrey.
> > >
> > > > My choice: correctness over performance
> > >
> > > I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
> > > It seems we can got both.
> > >
> > > > May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we don't
> > have benchmark results
> > >
> > > I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of
> > TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
> > > Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t bring any
> > performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.
> > >
> > > I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
> > > Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.
> > >
> > > > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> > > >
> > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of
> > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably affect
> > > > performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback all
> > > > metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&
> > > >
> > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers
> > to do it.
> > > >
> > > > I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current behavior is
> > > > incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.
> > > >
> > > > Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is more
> > > > important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.
> > > >
> > > > My choice: correctness over performance.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov 
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag to
> > TcpCommunicationSpi.
> > > >>
> > > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of
> > TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> > > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> > > >>
> > > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers
> > to do it.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> > > >>>
> > > > "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work."
> > (c)
> > >  Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> > >  Are there any unresolved bugs?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or analyzed
> > > >>> retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart. It's
> > bug.
> > > >>>
> > > > User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> > >  Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor
> > in current master so we should change this code carefully
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by adding
> > > >>> metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov 
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > >  Andrey.
> > > 
> > > > "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work."
> > (c)
> > > 
> > >  Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Igniters,


Here is the list of actual release BLOCKER issues:

[1] Keep in mind unfinished discussion about internal classes
IGNITE-12456 [2] Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
*[Unassigned]* OPEN
IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes getting
down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] IN PROGRESS
IGNITE-12580 NPE in GridMetricManager [Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type [Anton
Kalashnikov] OPEN

[1]
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Internal-classes-are-exposed-in-public-API-td45146.html
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
[4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12580
[5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489


On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:25, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:

> Andrey,
>
> I've looked through those changes [1] and now they look good to me.
> Let's do the following:
>
> 1. Get a fresh TC.Bot visa
> 2. Merge these changes to the master branch.
> 3. After that and 3-day stabilization cherry-pick to 2.8
>
> Should we wait for benchmarks? I think at this release stage any
> additional benchmarks can eliminate our risks with extending scope.
> We've already had one - [2] (2.7.6 compared to 2.8).
>
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> [2]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
>
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:58, Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
> >
> > Andrey.
> >
> > > My choice: correctness over performance
> >
> > I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
> > It seems we can got both.
> >
> > > May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we don't
> have benchmark results
> >
> > I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of
> TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
> > Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t bring any
> performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.
> >
> > I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
> > Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.
> >
> > > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> > >
> > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of
> TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> > >
> > > Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably affect
> > > performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback all
> > > metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&
> > >
> > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers
> to do it.
> > >
> > > I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current behavior is
> > > incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.
> > >
> > > Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is more
> > > important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.
> > >
> > > My choice: correctness over performance.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag to
> TcpCommunicationSpi.
> > >>
> > >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of
> TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> > >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> > >>
> > >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers
> to do it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> > >>>
> > > "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work."
> (c)
> >  Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> >  Are there any unresolved bugs?
> > >>>
> > >>> Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or analyzed
> > >>> retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart. It's
> bug.
> > >>>
> > > User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> >  Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor
> in current master so we should change this code carefully
> > >>>
> > >>> This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by adding
> > >>> metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov 
> wrote:
> > 
> >  Andrey.
> > 
> > > "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work."
> (c)
> > 
> >  Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> >  Are there any unresolved bugs?
> > 
> > > IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally
> > 
> >  All I asking for is to confirm this statement with the benchmark
> results.
> > 
> > > User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> > 
> >  Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor
> in current master so we should change this code carefully
> > 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Nikolay Izhikov]

Maxim.

> Should we wait for benchmarks?

After review, these changes looks much safer for me - no additional metrics 
added.
I performed benchmarking for initial refactoring of 
`TcpCommunicationMetricsListener` on the new Metric API.

It seems, there is no need for benchmarking anymore.

> 28 янв. 2020 г., в 19:25, Maxim Muzafarov  написал(а):
> 
> Andrey,
> 
> I've looked through those changes [1] and now they look good to me.
> Let's do the following:
> 
> 1. Get a fresh TC.Bot visa
> 2. Merge these changes to the master branch.
> 3. After that and 3-day stabilization cherry-pick to 2.8
> 
> Should we wait for benchmarks? I think at this release stage any
> additional benchmarks can eliminate our risks with extending scope.
> We've already had one - [2] (2.7.6 compared to 2.8).
> 
> 
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> [2] 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
> 
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:58, Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
>> 
>> Andrey.
>> 
>>> My choice: correctness over performance
>> 
>> I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
>> It seems we can got both.
>> 
>>> May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we don't have 
>>> benchmark results
>> 
>> I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of 
>> TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
>> Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t bring any 
>> performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.
>> 
>> I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
>> Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.
>> 
>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
>>> 
 We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of 
 TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
 So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
>>> 
>>> Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably affect
>>> performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback all
>>> metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&
>>> 
 I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers to 
 do it.
>>> 
>>> I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current behavior is
>>> incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.
>>> 
>>> Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is more
>>> important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.
>>> 
>>> My choice: correctness over performance.
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov  
>>> wrote:
 
> I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag to 
> TcpCommunicationSpi.
 
 We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of 
 TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
 So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
 
 I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers to 
 do it.
 
 
> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> 
>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> 
> Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or analyzed
> retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart. It's bug.
> 
>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in 
>> current master so we should change this code carefully
> 
> This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by adding
> metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
> 
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov  
> wrote:
>> 
>> Andrey.
>> 
>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
>> 
>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
>> 
>>> IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally
>> 
>> All I asking for is to confirm this statement with the benchmark results.
>> 
>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
>> 
>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in 
>> current master so we should change this code carefully
>> 
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-2.7.6/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java#L1178
>> 
>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 20:40, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
>>> 
>>> Nikolay,
>>> 
 But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to 
 current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
>>> 
>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
>>> 
>>> I believe that benchmarks ignite-2.7.6 vs ignite-2.8 will show
>>> 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Andrey,

I've looked through those changes [1] and now they look good to me.
Let's do the following:

1. Get a fresh TC.Bot visa
2. Merge these changes to the master branch.
3. After that and 3-day stabilization cherry-pick to 2.8

Should we wait for benchmarks? I think at this release stage any
additional benchmarks can eliminate our risks with extending scope.
We've already had one - [2] (2.7.6 compared to 2.8).


[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
[2] 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 23:58, Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
>
> Andrey.
>
> > My choice: correctness over performance
>
> I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
> It seems we can got both.
>
> > May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we don't have 
> > benchmark results
>
> I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of 
> TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
> Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t bring any 
> performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.
>
> I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
> Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.
>
> > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> >
> >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of 
> >> TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> >
> > Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably affect
> > performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback all
> > metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&
> >
> >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers to 
> >> do it.
> >
> > I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current behavior is
> > incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.
> >
> > Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is more
> > important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.
> >
> > My choice: correctness over performance.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov  
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag to 
> >>> TcpCommunicationSpi.
> >>
> >> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of 
> >> TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> >> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> >>
> >> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers to 
> >> do it.
> >>
> >>
> >>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> >>>
> > "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
>  Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
>  Are there any unresolved bugs?
> >>>
> >>> Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or analyzed
> >>> retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart. It's bug.
> >>>
> > User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
>  Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in 
>  current master so we should change this code carefully
> >>>
> >>> This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by adding
> >>> metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov  
> >>> wrote:
> 
>  Andrey.
> 
> > "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
> 
>  Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
>  Are there any unresolved bugs?
> 
> > IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally
> 
>  All I asking for is to confirm this statement with the benchmark results.
> 
> > User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> 
>  Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in 
>  current master so we should change this code carefully
> 
>  https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-2.7.6/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java#L1178
> 
> > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 20:40, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> >
> > Nikolay,
> >
> >> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to 
> >> current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> >
> > "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
> >
> > I believe that benchmarks ignite-2.7.6 vs ignite-2.8 will show
> > noticeable drop in performance for ignite-2.8. But it is cumulative
> > effect and IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally.
> >
> >> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> >
> > Metrics are not free at all. User can disable metrics if it will
> > affect performance.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM Nikolay Izhikov  
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello, Andrey.
> >>
> >> 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Nikolay Izhikov]

Andrey.

> My choice: correctness over performance

I don’t think we should select performance OR correctness here.
It seems we can got both.

> May be we should rollback all metrics related changes because we don't have 
> benchmark results

I perform benchmarking for initial refactoring of 
TcpCommunicationMetricsListener.
Initial refactoring of TcpCommunicationMetricsListener doesn’t bring any 
performance drop according to the results of the tests I performed.

I want to perform benchmarking just to be sure everything OK.
Please, wait while I gather benchmark results for this PR.

> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 22:33, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> 
>> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of 
>> TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
>> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
> 
> Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably affect
> performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback all
> metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&
> 
>> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers to do 
>> it.
> 
> I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current behavior is
> incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.
> 
> Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is more
> important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.
> 
> My choice: correctness over performance.
> 
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
>> 
>>> I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag to 
>>> TcpCommunicationSpi.
>> 
>> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of 
>> TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
>> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
>> 
>> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers to do 
>> it.
>> 
>> 
>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
>>> 
> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
 Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
 Are there any unresolved bugs?
>>> 
>>> Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or analyzed
>>> retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart. It's bug.
>>> 
> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
 Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in 
 current master so we should change this code carefully
>>> 
>>> This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by adding
>>> metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
 
 Andrey.
 
> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
 
 Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
 Are there any unresolved bugs?
 
> IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally
 
 All I asking for is to confirm this statement with the benchmark results.
 
> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
 
 Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in 
 current master so we should change this code carefully
 
 https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-2.7.6/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java#L1178
 
> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 20:40, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> 
> Nikolay,
> 
>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to 
>> current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> 
> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
> 
> I believe that benchmarks ignite-2.7.6 vs ignite-2.8 will show
> noticeable drop in performance for ignite-2.8. But it is cumulative
> effect and IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally.
> 
>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> 
> Metrics are not free at all. User can disable metrics if it will
> affect performance.
> 
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM Nikolay Izhikov  
> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello, Andrey.
>> 
>> I’m OK to include these changes to 2.8.
>> I don’t review PR, but the ticket description makes sense to me.
>> 
>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to 
>> current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
>> 
>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 18:19, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
>>> 
>>> Igniters,
>>> 
>>> I want to add one more issue to the Apache Ignite 2.8 release scope [1].
>>> 
>>> The problem is impossibility of using communication metrics gathered
>>> for nodes in the cluster because node ID will changed in case of
>>> restart. Obvious solution is using consistent ID instead of node ID.
>>> 
>>> PR is already implemented and ready for review.

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Andrey Gura]

> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of 
> TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.

 Absolutely all metrics are on the hot path. They inevitably affect
performance and this case is the same. May be we should rollback all
metrics related changes because we don't have benchmark results&

> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers to do 
> it.

I don't need help in benchmarking. Once again, еhe current behavior is
incorrect and should be fixed regardless of performance.

Or... this functionality should be removed if performance is more
important. In case of incorrect behavior it is the best option.

My choice: correctness over performance.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
>
> > I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag to 
> > TcpCommunicationSpi.
>
> We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of 
> TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
> So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.
>
> I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers to do 
> it.
>
>
> > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> >
> >>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
> >> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> >> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> >
> > Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or analyzed
> > retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart. It's bug.
> >
> >>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> >> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in 
> >> current master so we should change this code carefully
> >
> > This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by adding
> > metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
> >>
> >> Andrey.
> >>
> >>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
> >>
> >> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> >> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> >>
> >>> IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally
> >>
> >> All I asking for is to confirm this statement with the benchmark results.
> >>
> >>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> >>
> >> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in 
> >> current master so we should change this code carefully
> >>
> >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-2.7.6/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java#L1178
> >>
> >>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 20:40, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> >>>
> >>> Nikolay,
> >>>
>  But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to 
>  current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> >>>
> >>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
> >>>
> >>> I believe that benchmarks ignite-2.7.6 vs ignite-2.8 will show
> >>> noticeable drop in performance for ignite-2.8. But it is cumulative
> >>> effect and IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally.
> >>>
>  Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> >>>
> >>> Metrics are not free at all. User can disable metrics if it will
> >>> affect performance.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM Nikolay Izhikov  
> >>> wrote:
> 
>  Hello, Andrey.
> 
>  I’m OK to include these changes to 2.8.
>  I don’t review PR, but the ticket description makes sense to me.
> 
>  But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to 
>  current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
>  Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> 
> > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 18:19, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> >
> > Igniters,
> >
> > I want to add one more issue to the Apache Ignite 2.8 release scope [1].
> >
> > The problem is impossibility of using communication metrics gathered
> > for nodes in the cluster because node ID will changed in case of
> > restart. Obvious solution is using consistent ID instead of node ID.
> >
> > PR is already implemented and ready for review.
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov  
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >>
> >> I've cherry-picked these issues [1] [2] to the 2.8 release branch.
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> >> Update versions of vulnerable dependencies
> >>
> >> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> >> Truncation of archived WAL segments doesn't work
> >>
> >> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:08, Ivan Bessonov  
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi igniters,
> >>>
> >>> there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like you 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Nikolay Izhikov]

> I think it could be fixed easily by adding metricsEnabled flag to 
> TcpCommunicationSpi.

We still can’t accept patches that badly affects the performance of 
TcpCommuncationMetricsListener.
So we should perform yardstick tests before the merge.

I can help to run yardstick benchmarks if you don’t have free servers to do it.


> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 21:47, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> 
>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
> 
> Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or analyzed
> retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart. It's bug.
> 
>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in 
>> current master so we should change this code carefully
> 
> This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by adding
> metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.
> 
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
>> 
>> Andrey.
>> 
>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
>> 
>> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
>> Are there any unresolved bugs?
>> 
>>> IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally
>> 
>> All I asking for is to confirm this statement with the benchmark results.
>> 
>>> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
>> 
>> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in 
>> current master so we should change this code carefully
>> 
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-2.7.6/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java#L1178
>> 
>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 20:40, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
>>> 
>>> Nikolay,
>>> 
 But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to 
 current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
>>> 
>>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
>>> 
>>> I believe that benchmarks ignite-2.7.6 vs ignite-2.8 will show
>>> noticeable drop in performance for ignite-2.8. But it is cumulative
>>> effect and IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally.
>>> 
 Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
>>> 
>>> Metrics are not free at all. User can disable metrics if it will
>>> affect performance.
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
 
 Hello, Andrey.
 
 I’m OK to include these changes to 2.8.
 I don’t review PR, but the ticket description makes sense to me.
 
 But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to 
 current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
 Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
 
> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 18:19, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> 
> Igniters,
> 
> I want to add one more issue to the Apache Ignite 2.8 release scope [1].
> 
> The problem is impossibility of using communication metrics gathered
> for nodes in the cluster because node ID will changed in case of
> restart. Obvious solution is using consistent ID instead of node ID.
> 
> PR is already implemented and ready for review.
> 
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> 
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> 
>> I've cherry-picked these issues [1] [2] to the 2.8 release branch.
>> 
>> 
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
>> Update versions of vulnerable dependencies
>> 
>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
>> Truncation of archived WAL segments doesn't work
>> 
>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:08, Ivan Bessonov  
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi igniters,
>>> 
>>> there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like you to include in 
>>> the
>>> next release:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Can you please cherry-pick it? Thank you!
>>> 
>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:45, Pavel Tupitsyn :
>>> 
 Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
 However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not really a release
 candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.
 
 For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages built from 
 current
 ignite-2.8 branch:
 https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122
 
 
 On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev 
  
 wrote:
 
> Hello!
> 
> I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies' versions:
> 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Andrey Gura]

>> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> Are there any unresolved bugs?

Obviously some communication metrics can't be monitored or analyzed
retrospectively due to changing node ID during node restart. It's bug.

>>  User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in 
> current master so we should change this code carefully

This is another bug. I think it could be fixed easily by adding
metricsEnabled flag to TcpCommunicationSpi.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
>
> Andrey.
>
> > "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
>
> Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
> Are there any unresolved bugs?
>
> > IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally
>
> All I asking for is to confirm this statement with the benchmark results.
>
> > User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.
>
> Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in 
> current master so we should change this code carefully
>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-2.7.6/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java#L1178
>
> > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 20:40, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> >
> > Nikolay,
> >
> >> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to 
> >> current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> >
> > "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
> >
> > I believe that benchmarks ignite-2.7.6 vs ignite-2.8 will show
> > noticeable drop in performance for ignite-2.8. But it is cumulative
> > effect and IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally.
> >
> >> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> >
> > Metrics are not free at all. User can disable metrics if it will
> > affect performance.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello, Andrey.
> >>
> >> I’m OK to include these changes to 2.8.
> >> I don’t review PR, but the ticket description makes sense to me.
> >>
> >> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to 
> >> current master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> >> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> >>
> >>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 18:19, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> >>>
> >>> Igniters,
> >>>
> >>> I want to add one more issue to the Apache Ignite 2.8 release scope [1].
> >>>
> >>> The problem is impossibility of using communication metrics gathered
> >>> for nodes in the cluster because node ID will changed in case of
> >>> restart. Obvious solution is using consistent ID instead of node ID.
> >>>
> >>> PR is already implemented and ready for review.
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
> 
>  Folks,
> 
> 
>  I've cherry-picked these issues [1] [2] to the 2.8 release branch.
> 
> 
>  [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
>  Update versions of vulnerable dependencies
> 
>  [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
>  Truncation of archived WAL segments doesn't work
> 
>  On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:08, Ivan Bessonov  
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi igniters,
> >
> > there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like you to include in 
> > the
> > next release:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> > 
> >
> > Can you please cherry-pick it? Thank you!
> >
> > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:45, Pavel Tupitsyn :
> >
> >> Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
> >> However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not really a release
> >> candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.
> >>
> >> For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages built from 
> >> current
> >> ignite-2.8 branch:
> >> https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev 
> >>  >>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello!
> >>>
> >>> I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies' versions:
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> >>>
> >>> Would you mind including this change into the scope of 2.8? No point 
> >>> of
> >>> shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> --
> >>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov :
> >>>
>  Alexey,
> 
>  Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
> 
> 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Nikolay Izhikov]

Andrey.

> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)

Please, clarify, what do you mean by «doesn’t work»?
Are there any unresolved bugs?

> IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally

All I asking for is to confirm this statement with the benchmark results.

> User can disable metrics if it will affect performance.

Users can’t disable TcpCommunicationListener nor in any release nor in current 
master so we should change this code carefully

https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/ignite-2.7.6/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java#L1178

> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 20:40, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> 
> Nikolay,
> 
>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to current 
>> master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> 
> "If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)
> 
> I believe that benchmarks ignite-2.7.6 vs ignite-2.8 will show
> noticeable drop in performance for ignite-2.8. But it is cumulative
> effect and IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally.
> 
>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
> 
> Metrics are not free at all. User can disable metrics if it will
> affect performance.
> 
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
>> 
>> Hello, Andrey.
>> 
>> I’m OK to include these changes to 2.8.
>> I don’t review PR, but the ticket description makes sense to me.
>> 
>> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to current 
>> master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
>> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
>> 
>>> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 18:19, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
>>> 
>>> Igniters,
>>> 
>>> I want to add one more issue to the Apache Ignite 2.8 release scope [1].
>>> 
>>> The problem is impossibility of using communication metrics gathered
>>> for nodes in the cluster because node ID will changed in case of
>>> restart. Obvious solution is using consistent ID instead of node ID.
>>> 
>>> PR is already implemented and ready for review.
>>> 
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
 
 Folks,
 
 
 I've cherry-picked these issues [1] [2] to the 2.8 release branch.
 
 
 [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
 Update versions of vulnerable dependencies
 
 [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
 Truncation of archived WAL segments doesn't work
 
 On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:08, Ivan Bessonov  wrote:
> 
> Hi igniters,
> 
> there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like you to include in 
> the
> next release:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> 
> 
> Can you please cherry-pick it? Thank you!
> 
> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:45, Pavel Tupitsyn :
> 
>> Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
>> However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not really a release
>> candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.
>> 
>> For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages built from 
>> current
>> ignite-2.8 branch:
>> https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev 
>> >> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello!
>>> 
>>> I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies' versions:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
>>> 
>>> Would you mind including this change into the scope of 2.8? No point of
>>> shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> --
>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov :
>>> 
 Alexey,
 
 Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
 
 On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> 
> Good Idea, this will also check that the release process is alive.
> 
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Folks, Maxim,
>> 
>> Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8 branch and
 upload a
>> maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release process)? I want
>> run
 some
>> tests for the fixes that are already included to the branch.
>> 
>> вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov :
>> 
>>> Folks,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to 2.8 release
>>> and
>>> we must include them.
>>> 
>>> [1] 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Andrey Gura]

Nikolay,

> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to current 
> master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.

"If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter how fast it doesn’t work." (c)

I believe that benchmarks ignite-2.7.6 vs ignite-2.8 will show
noticeable drop in performance for ignite-2.8. But it is cumulative
effect and IGINTE-12576 affects it minimally.

> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.

Metrics are not free at all. User can disable metrics if it will
affect performance.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:23 PM Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
>
> Hello, Andrey.
>
> I’m OK to include these changes to 2.8.
> I don’t review PR, but the ticket description makes sense to me.
>
> But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to current 
> master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
> Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.
>
> > 27 янв. 2020 г., в 18:19, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> >
> > Igniters,
> >
> > I want to add one more issue to the Apache Ignite 2.8 release scope [1].
> >
> > The problem is impossibility of using communication metrics gathered
> > for nodes in the cluster because node ID will changed in case of
> > restart. Obvious solution is using consistent ID instead of node ID.
> >
> > PR is already implemented and ready for review.
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
> >>
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >>
> >> I've cherry-picked these issues [1] [2] to the 2.8 release branch.
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> >> Update versions of vulnerable dependencies
> >>
> >> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> >> Truncation of archived WAL segments doesn't work
> >>
> >> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:08, Ivan Bessonov  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi igniters,
> >>>
> >>> there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like you to include in 
> >>> the
> >>> next release:
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> Can you please cherry-pick it? Thank you!
> >>>
> >>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:45, Pavel Tupitsyn :
> >>>
>  Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
>  However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not really a release
>  candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.
> 
>  For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages built from 
>  current
>  ignite-2.8 branch:
>  https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122
> 
> 
>  On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev 
>   >
>  wrote:
> 
> > Hello!
> >
> > I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies' versions:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> >
> > Would you mind including this change into the scope of 2.8? No point of
> > shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> >
> > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov :
> >
> >> Alexey,
> >>
> >> Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
> >>
> >> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Good Idea, this will also check that the release process is alive.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
>  Folks, Maxim,
> 
>  Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8 branch and
> >> upload a
>  maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release process)? I want
>  run
> >> some
>  tests for the fixes that are already included to the branch.
> 
>  вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov :
> 
> > Folks,
> >
> >
> > I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to 2.8 release
> > and
> > we must include them.
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC pressure.
> >
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the checkpoint is
> > triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov <
> > plehanov.a...@gmail.com
> >>>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Guys,
> >>
> >> There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2], which
>  also
>  affects
> >> 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown in some
> > cases
>  (data
> >> region is small, a checkpoint is 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Nikolay Izhikov]

Hello, Andrey.

I’m OK to include these changes to 2.8.
I don’t review PR, but the ticket description makes sense to me.

But, we must gather yardstick benchmark results for PR(comparing to current 
master) before merge to ensure there is no performance drop.
Note, that these metrics updated on each communication message.

> 27 янв. 2020 г., в 18:19, Andrey Gura  написал(а):
> 
> Igniters,
> 
> I want to add one more issue to the Apache Ignite 2.8 release scope [1].
> 
> The problem is impossibility of using communication metrics gathered
> for nodes in the cluster because node ID will changed in case of
> restart. Obvious solution is using consistent ID instead of node ID.
> 
> PR is already implemented and ready for review.
> 
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576
> 
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> 
>> I've cherry-picked these issues [1] [2] to the 2.8 release branch.
>> 
>> 
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
>> Update versions of vulnerable dependencies
>> 
>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
>> Truncation of archived WAL segments doesn't work
>> 
>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:08, Ivan Bessonov  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi igniters,
>>> 
>>> there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like you to include in the
>>> next release:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Can you please cherry-pick it? Thank you!
>>> 
>>> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:45, Pavel Tupitsyn :
>>> 
 Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
 However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not really a release
 candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.
 
 For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages built from current
 ignite-2.8 branch:
 https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122
 
 
 On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev  
 wrote:
 
> Hello!
> 
> I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies' versions:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> 
> Would you mind including this change into the scope of 2.8? No point of
> shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
> 
> 
> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov :
> 
>> Alexey,
>> 
>> Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
>> 
>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Good Idea, this will also check that the release process is alive.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
>>> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
 Folks, Maxim,
 
 Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8 branch and
>> upload a
 maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release process)? I want
 run
>> some
 tests for the fixes that are already included to the branch.
 
 вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov :
 
> Folks,
> 
> 
> I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to 2.8 release
> and
> we must include them.
> 
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC pressure.
> 
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the checkpoint is
> triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
> 
> 
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov <
> plehanov.a...@gmail.com
>>> 
> wrote:
>> 
>> Guys,
>> 
>> There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2], which
 also
 affects
>> 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown in some
> cases
 (data
>> region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too many dirty
>> pages"
> reason
>> and pages list cache is rather big).
>> The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to include
 this
>> fix to
> 2.8
>> release. What do you think?
>> 
>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
>> [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
>> 
>> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>:
>> 
>>> Maxim,
>>> 
>>> I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure it's
> about
>> data
>>> corruption. In the attached logs blocked system threads are
>> reported,
>>> however, there is no enough information to investigate the
> issue
>> (the
> 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Andrey Gura]

Igniters,

I want to add one more issue to the Apache Ignite 2.8 release scope [1].

The problem is impossibility of using communication metrics gathered
for nodes in the cluster because node ID will changed in case of
restart. Obvious solution is using consistent ID instead of node ID.

PR is already implemented and ready for review.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12576

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
>
> I've cherry-picked these issues [1] [2] to the 2.8 release branch.
>
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> Update versions of vulnerable dependencies
>
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> Truncation of archived WAL segments doesn't work
>
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:08, Ivan Bessonov  wrote:
> >
> > Hi igniters,
> >
> > there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like you to include in the
> > next release:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> > 
> >
> > Can you please cherry-pick it? Thank you!
> >
> > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:45, Pavel Tupitsyn :
> >
> > > Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
> > > However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not really a release
> > > candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.
> > >
> > > For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages built from current
> > > ignite-2.8 branch:
> > > https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev  > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello!
> > > >
> > > > I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies' versions:
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> > > >
> > > > Would you mind including this change into the scope of 2.8? No point of
> > > > shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > --
> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > >
> > > > > Alexey,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov  
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good Idea, this will also check that the release process is alive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Folks, Maxim,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8 branch and
> > > > > upload a
> > > > > > > maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release process)? I want
> > > run
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > tests for the fixes that are already included to the branch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to 2.8 release
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > we must include them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > > > > > > Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC pressure.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > > > > > > Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the checkpoint is
> > > > > > > > triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov <
> > > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2], which
> > > also
> > > > > > > affects
> > > > > > > > > 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown in some
> > > > cases
> > > > > > > (data
> > > > > > > > > region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too many dirty
> > > > > pages"
> > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > and pages list cache is rather big).
> > > > > > > > > The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to include
> > > this
> > > > > fix to
> > > > > > > > 2.8
> > > > > > > > > release. What do you think?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > > > > > > > [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Maxim,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure it's
> > > > about
> > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > corruption. In the attached logs blocked system threads are
> > > > > reported,
> > > > > > > > > > however, there is no enough information to investigate the
> > > > issue
> > > > > (the
> > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Folks,


I've cherry-picked these issues [1] [2] to the 2.8 release branch.


[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
Update versions of vulnerable dependencies

[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
Truncation of archived WAL segments doesn't work

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:08, Ivan Bessonov  wrote:
>
> Hi igniters,
>
> there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like you to include in the
> next release:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486
> 
>
> Can you please cherry-pick it? Thank you!
>
> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:45, Pavel Tupitsyn :
>
> > Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
> > However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not really a release
> > candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.
> >
> > For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages built from current
> > ignite-2.8 branch:
> > https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev  > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies' versions:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> > >
> > > Would you mind including this change into the scope of 2.8? No point of
> > > shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --
> > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > >
> > >
> > > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > >
> > > > Alexey,
> > > >
> > > > Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Good Idea, this will also check that the release process is alive.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Folks, Maxim,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8 branch and
> > > > upload a
> > > > > > maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release process)? I want
> > run
> > > > some
> > > > > > tests for the fixes that are already included to the branch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to 2.8 release
> > > and
> > > > > > > we must include them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > > > > > Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC pressure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > > > > > Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the checkpoint is
> > > > > > > triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov <
> > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2], which
> > also
> > > > > > affects
> > > > > > > > 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown in some
> > > cases
> > > > > > (data
> > > > > > > > region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too many dirty
> > > > pages"
> > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > and pages list cache is rather big).
> > > > > > > > The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to include
> > this
> > > > fix to
> > > > > > > 2.8
> > > > > > > > release. What do you think?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > > > > > > [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Maxim,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure it's
> > > about
> > > > data
> > > > > > > > > corruption. In the attached logs blocked system threads are
> > > > reported,
> > > > > > > > > however, there is no enough information to investigate the
> > > issue
> > > > (the
> > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > > thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket creator to
> > > > attach
> > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > pieces.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Should we consider moving this ticket to a next release?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in master, if no
> > > > > > > objections, can
> > > > > > > > > > u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
> > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Ivan Bessonov]

Hi igniters,

there's a potential data corruption fix that I'd like you to include in the
next release:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12486


Can you please cherry-pick it? Thank you!

ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 17:45, Pavel Tupitsyn :

> Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
> However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not really a release
> candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.
>
> For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages built from current
> ignite-2.8 branch:
> https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies' versions:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
> >
> > Would you mind including this change into the scope of 2.8? No point of
> > shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> >
> > ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov :
> >
> > > Alexey,
> > >
> > > Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
> > >
> > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Good Idea, this will also check that the release process is alive.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Folks, Maxim,
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8 branch and
> > > upload a
> > > > > maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release process)? I want
> run
> > > some
> > > > > tests for the fixes that are already included to the branch.
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to 2.8 release
> > and
> > > > > > we must include them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > > > > Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC pressure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > > > > Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the checkpoint is
> > > > > > triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov <
> > plehanov.a...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2], which
> also
> > > > > affects
> > > > > > > 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown in some
> > cases
> > > > > (data
> > > > > > > region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too many dirty
> > > pages"
> > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > and pages list cache is rather big).
> > > > > > > The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to include
> this
> > > fix to
> > > > > > 2.8
> > > > > > > release. What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > > > > > [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maxim,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure it's
> > about
> > > data
> > > > > > > > corruption. In the attached logs blocked system threads are
> > > reported,
> > > > > > > > however, there is no enough information to investigate the
> > issue
> > > (the
> > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket creator to
> > > attach
> > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > pieces.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Should we consider moving this ticket to a next release?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> > > > > >  > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in master, if no
> > > > > > objections, can
> > > > > > > > > u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
> > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release issues:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for
> Load
> > > test
> > > > > > > > > >*[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > > > > > > >IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown
> page
> > > type*
> > > > > > > > > >[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > > > > > > >IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use
> example-ignite.xml
> > > config
> > > > > > > > > >*[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based
> > Discovery)
> > > > > Nodes
> > > > 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

Good idea about pre-release build of ignite-2.8 branch.
However, I would not name it `rc`, since it is not really a release
candidate. Make it `pre0` or something like that.

For Ignite.NET I've uploaded pre-release NuGet packages built from current
ignite-2.8 branch:
https://www.nuget.org/packages/Apache.Ignite/2.8.0-alpha20200122


On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ilya Kasnacheev 
wrote:

> Hello!
>
> I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies' versions:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540
>
> Would you mind including this change into the scope of 2.8? No point of
> shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov :
>
> > Alexey,
> >
> > Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
> >
> > On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> > >
> > > Good Idea, this will also check that the release process is alive.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Folks, Maxim,
> > > >
> > > > Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8 branch and
> > upload a
> > > > maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release process)? I want run
> > some
> > > > tests for the fixes that are already included to the branch.
> > > >
> > > > вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > >
> > > > > Folks,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to 2.8 release
> and
> > > > > we must include them.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > > > Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC pressure.
> > > > >
> > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > > > Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the checkpoint is
> > > > > triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov <
> plehanov.a...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2], which also
> > > > affects
> > > > > > 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown in some
> cases
> > > > (data
> > > > > > region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too many dirty
> > pages"
> > > > > reason
> > > > > > and pages list cache is rather big).
> > > > > > The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to include this
> > fix to
> > > > > 2.8
> > > > > > release. What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > > > > [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
> > > > > >
> > > > > > пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maxim,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure it's
> about
> > data
> > > > > > > corruption. In the attached logs blocked system threads are
> > reported,
> > > > > > > however, there is no enough information to investigate the
> issue
> > (the
> > > > > full
> > > > > > > thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket creator to
> > attach
> > > > > missing
> > > > > > > pieces.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Should we consider moving this ticket to a next release?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> > > > >  > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in master, if no
> > > > > objections, can
> > > > > > > > u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
> > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release issues:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load
> > test
> > > > > > > > >*[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > > > > > >IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page
> > type*
> > > > > > > > >[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > > > > > >IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use example-ignite.xml
> > config
> > > > > > > > >*[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based
> Discovery)
> > > > Nodes
> > > > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > > >down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
> > > > > > > > >IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node client and
> > server
> > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > >restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
> > > > > > > > >IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API Improvement
> > [Nikolay
> > > > > > > Izhikov]
> > > > > > > > >Blocker IN PROGRESS
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline enabled flag
> > calculated
> > > > > > > > >incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > > > > > > >IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be deactivatable
> > > > 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Ilya Kasnacheev]

Hello!

I have committed the bumping of essential dependencies' versions:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540

Would you mind including this change into the scope of 2.8? No point of
shipping known problematic JARs in our deliverable.

Regards,
-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


ср, 22 янв. 2020 г. в 14:00, Maxim Muzafarov :

> Alexey,
>
> Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.
>
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> >
> > Good Idea, this will also check that the release process is alive.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Folks, Maxim,
> > >
> > > Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8 branch and
> upload a
> > > maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release process)? I want run
> some
> > > tests for the fixes that are already included to the branch.
> > >
> > > вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to 2.8 release and
> > > > we must include them.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > > Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC pressure.
> > > >
> > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > > Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the checkpoint is
> > > > triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2], which also
> > > affects
> > > > > 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown in some cases
> > > (data
> > > > > region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too many dirty
> pages"
> > > > reason
> > > > > and pages list cache is rather big).
> > > > > The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to include this
> fix to
> > > > 2.8
> > > > > release. What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > > > [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
> > > > >
> > > > > пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Maxim,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure it's about
> data
> > > > > > corruption. In the attached logs blocked system threads are
> reported,
> > > > > > however, there is no enough information to investigate the issue
> (the
> > > > full
> > > > > > thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket creator to
> attach
> > > > missing
> > > > > > pieces.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Should we consider moving this ticket to a next release?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> > > >  > > > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in master, if no
> > > > objections, can
> > > > > > > u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
> > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Igniters,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release issues:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load
> test
> > > > > > > >*[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > > > > >IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page
> type*
> > > > > > > >[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > > > > >IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use example-ignite.xml
> config
> > > > > > > >*[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery)
> > > Nodes
> > > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > >down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
> > > > > > > >IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node client and
> server
> > > > nodes
> > > > > > > >restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
> > > > > > > >IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API Improvement
> [Nikolay
> > > > > > Izhikov]
> > > > > > > >Blocker IN PROGRESS
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline enabled flag
> calculated
> > > > > > > >incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > > > > > >IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be deactivatable
> > > [Sergei
> > > > > > > >Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > > > > > >IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to the public API
> > > > > > Improvement
> > > > > > > >[Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >[1]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> > > > > > > >[2]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > > > > > > >[3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
> > > > > > > >[8]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > > > > > > >[3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
> > > > > > > >[6]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
> > > > > > > >[7]  

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Alexey,

Sure, I've just thought about it too a few days ago.

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
>
> Good Idea, this will also check that the release process is alive.
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Folks, Maxim,
> >
> > Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8 branch and upload a
> > maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release process)? I want run some
> > tests for the fixes that are already included to the branch.
> >
> > вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov :
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > >
> > > I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to 2.8 release and
> > > we must include them.
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC pressure.
> > >
> > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the checkpoint is
> > > triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Guys,
> > > >
> > > > There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2], which also
> > affects
> > > > 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown in some cases
> > (data
> > > > region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too many dirty pages"
> > > reason
> > > > and pages list cache is rather big).
> > > > The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to include this fix to
> > > 2.8
> > > > release. What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > > [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
> > > >
> > > > пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Maxim,
> > > > >
> > > > > I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure it's about data
> > > > > corruption. In the attached logs blocked system threads are reported,
> > > > > however, there is no enough information to investigate the issue (the
> > > full
> > > > > thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket creator to attach
> > > missing
> > > > > pieces.
> > > > >
> > > > > Should we consider moving this ticket to a next release?
> > > > >
> > > > > пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> > >  > > > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in master, if no
> > > objections, can
> > > > > > u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Igniters,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release issues:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
> > > > > > >*[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > > > >IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type*
> > > > > > >[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > > > >IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use example-ignite.xml config
> > > > > > >*[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery)
> > Nodes
> > > > > > getting
> > > > > > >down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
> > > > > > >IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node client and server
> > > nodes
> > > > > > >restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
> > > > > > >IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API Improvement [Nikolay
> > > > > Izhikov]
> > > > > > >Blocker IN PROGRESS
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline enabled flag calculated
> > > > > > >incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > > > > >IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be deactivatable
> > [Sergei
> > > > > > >Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > > > > >IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to the public API
> > > > > Improvement
> > > > > > >[Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >[1]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> > > > > > >[2]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > > > > > >[3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
> > > > > > >[8]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > > > > > >[3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
> > > > > > >[6]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
> > > > > > >[7]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
> > > > > > >[9]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470
> > > > > > >[5]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Sergey Antonov <
> > > > > antonovserge...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Maxim,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all is started.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Anton Vinogradov]

Good Idea, this will also check that the release process is alive.

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Folks, Maxim,
>
> Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8 branch and upload a
> maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release process)? I want run some
> tests for the fixes that are already included to the branch.
>
> вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov :
>
> > Folks,
> >
> >
> > I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to 2.8 release and
> > we must include them.
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC pressure.
> >
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the checkpoint is
> > triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2], which also
> affects
> > > 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown in some cases
> (data
> > > region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too many dirty pages"
> > reason
> > > and pages list cache is rather big).
> > > The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to include this fix to
> > 2.8
> > > release. What do you think?
> > >
> > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > > [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
> > >
> > > пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Maxim,
> > > >
> > > > I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure it's about data
> > > > corruption. In the attached logs blocked system threads are reported,
> > > > however, there is no enough information to investigate the issue (the
> > full
> > > > thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket creator to attach
> > missing
> > > > pieces.
> > > >
> > > > Should we consider moving this ticket to a next release?
> > > >
> > > > пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> >  > > > >:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in master, if no
> > objections, can
> > > > > u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > > >
> > > > > >Igniters,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release issues:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
> > > > > >*[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > > >IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type*
> > > > > >[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > > >IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use example-ignite.xml config
> > > > > >*[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > > >
> > > > > >IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery)
> Nodes
> > > > > getting
> > > > > >down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
> > > > > >IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node client and server
> > nodes
> > > > > >restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
> > > > > >IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API Improvement [Nikolay
> > > > Izhikov]
> > > > > >Blocker IN PROGRESS
> > > > > >
> > > > > >IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline enabled flag calculated
> > > > > >incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > > > >IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be deactivatable
> [Sergei
> > > > > >Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > > > >IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to the public API
> > > > Improvement
> > > > > >[Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >[1]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> > > > > >[2]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > > > > >[3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
> > > > > >[8]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > > > > >[3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
> > > > > >[6]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
> > > > > >[7]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
> > > > > >[9]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470
> > > > > >[5]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Sergey Antonov <
> > > > antonovserge...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Maxim,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all is started.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey Antonov <
> > > > antonovserge...@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Maxim,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I will do that on monday (20/01).
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim Muzafarov <
> mmu...@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >  Sergey,
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >  Can you, please, resolve the PR 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Alexey Goncharuk]

Folks, Maxim,

Do you mind if I build the current state of ignite-2.8 branch and upload a
maven staging as rc0 (step 4.3.2 of the release process)? I want run some
tests for the fixes that are already included to the branch.

вт, 21 янв. 2020 г. в 14:28, Maxim Muzafarov :

> Folks,
>
>
> I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to 2.8 release and
> we must include them.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC pressure.
>
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the checkpoint is
> triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov 
> wrote:
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2], which also affects
> > 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown in some cases (data
> > region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too many dirty pages"
> reason
> > and pages list cache is rather big).
> > The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to include this fix to
> 2.8
> > release. What do you think?
> >
> > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> > [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
> >
> > пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk <
> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Maxim,
> > >
> > > I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure it's about data
> > > corruption. In the attached logs blocked system threads are reported,
> > > however, there is no enough information to investigate the issue (the
> full
> > > thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket creator to attach
> missing
> > > pieces.
> > >
> > > Should we consider moving this ticket to a next release?
> > >
> > > пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky
>  > > >:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in master, if no
> objections, can
> > > > u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > > >
> > > > >Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release issues:
> > > > >
> > > > >IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
> > > > >*[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > >IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type*
> > > > >[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > >IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use example-ignite.xml config
> > > > >*[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > > >
> > > > >IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
> > > > getting
> > > > >down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
> > > > >IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node client and server
> nodes
> > > > >restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
> > > > >IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API Improvement [Nikolay
> > > Izhikov]
> > > > >Blocker IN PROGRESS
> > > > >
> > > > >IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline enabled flag calculated
> > > > >incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > > >IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be deactivatable [Sergei
> > > > >Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > > >IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to the public API
> > > Improvement
> > > > >[Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >[1]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> > > > >[2]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > > > >[3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
> > > > >[8]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > > > >[3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
> > > > >[6]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
> > > > >[7]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
> > > > >[9]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470
> > > > >[5]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Sergey Antonov <
> > > antonovserge...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Maxim,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all is started.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > > > >>
> > > > >> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey Antonov <
> > > antonovserge...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Maxim,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I will do that on monday (20/01).
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim Muzafarov < mmu...@apache.org
> >:
> > > > >>>
> > > >  Sergey,
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts [1] [2]?
> > > > 
> > > >  [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > > >  [2]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
> > > > 
> > > >  On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com >
> > > >  wrote:
> > > >  >
> > > >  > Hello!
> > > >  >
> > > >  > I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra Store tests. Can
> you
> > 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Folks,


I think both of these issues [1] [2] are critical to 2.8 release and
we must include them.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
Excessive AtomicLong instantiations lead to GC pressure.

[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
Pages list caching can cause IgniteOOME when the checkpoint is
triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason.


On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:00, Alex Plehanov  wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2], which also affects
> 2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown in some cases (data
> region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason
> and pages list cache is rather big).
> The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to include this fix to 2.8
> release. What do you think?
>
> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
> [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930
>
> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk :
>
> > Maxim,
> >
> > I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure it's about data
> > corruption. In the attached logs blocked system threads are reported,
> > however, there is no enough information to investigate the issue (the full
> > thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket creator to attach missing
> > pieces.
> >
> > Should we consider moving this ticket to a next release?
> >
> > пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky  > >:
> >
> > >
> > > Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in master, if no objections, can
> > > u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> > >
> > > >Igniters,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release issues:
> > > >
> > > >IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
> > > >*[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > >IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type*
> > > >[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > >IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use example-ignite.xml config
> > > >*[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > > >
> > > >IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
> > > getting
> > > >down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
> > > >IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node client and server nodes
> > > >restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
> > > >IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API Improvement [Nikolay
> > Izhikov]
> > > >Blocker IN PROGRESS
> > > >
> > > >IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline enabled flag calculated
> > > >incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > >IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be deactivatable [Sergei
> > > >Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > >IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to the public API
> > Improvement
> > > >[Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >[1]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> > > >[2]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > > >[3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
> > > >[8]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > > >[3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
> > > >[6]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
> > > >[7]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
> > > >[9]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470
> > > >[5]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Sergey Antonov <
> > antonovserge...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Maxim,
> > > >>
> > > >> Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all is started.
> > > >>
> > > >> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > > >>
> > > >> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey Antonov <
> > antonovserge...@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Maxim,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I will do that on monday (20/01).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim Muzafarov < mmu...@apache.org >:
> > > >>>
> > >  Sergey,
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts [1] [2]?
> > > 
> > >  [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > >  [2]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
> > > 
> > >  On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com >
> > >  wrote:
> > >  >
> > >  > Hello!
> > >  >
> > >  > I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra Store tests. Can you
> > >  please
> > >  > comment on the ticket?
> > >  >
> > >  > I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much effort (there's chaos
> > with
> > >  > jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should be split up as a
> > separate
> > >  ticket
> > >  > to be done later.
> > >  >
> > >  > Regards,
> > >  > --
> > >  > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir Pligin <
> > vova199...@yandex.ru
> > > >:
> > >  >
> > >  > > Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to have your patch

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Alex Plehanov]

Guys,

There is an issue [1] caused by page list caching [2], which also affects
2.8 release. IgniteOutOfMemoryException can be thrown in some cases (data
region is small, a checkpoint is triggered by "too many dirty pages" reason
and pages list cache is rather big).
The fix is ready and merged to master, I suggest to include this fix to 2.8
release. What do you think?

[1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12530
[2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6930

пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 12:57, Alexey Goncharuk :

> Maxim,
>
> I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure it's about data
> corruption. In the attached logs blocked system threads are reported,
> however, there is no enough information to investigate the issue (the full
> thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket creator to attach missing
> pieces.
>
> Should we consider moving this ticket to a next release?
>
> пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky  >:
>
> >
> > Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in master, if no objections, can
> > u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
> >
> > >Igniters,
> > >
> > >
> > >Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release issues:
> > >
> > >IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
> > >*[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > >IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type*
> > >[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > >IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use example-ignite.xml config
> > >*[Unassigned]* OPEN
> > >
> > >IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
> > getting
> > >down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
> > >IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node client and server nodes
> > >restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
> > >IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API Improvement [Nikolay
> Izhikov]
> > >Blocker IN PROGRESS
> > >
> > >IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline enabled flag calculated
> > >incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > >IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be deactivatable [Sergei
> > >Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > >IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to the public API
> Improvement
> > >[Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> > >
> > >
> > >[1]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> > >[2]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> > >[3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
> > >[8]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> > >[3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
> > >[6]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
> > >[7]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
> > >[9]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470
> > >[5]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552
> > >
> > >
> > >On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Sergey Antonov <
> antonovserge...@gmail.com
> > >
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> Maxim,
> > >>
> > >> Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all is started.
> > >>
> > >> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > >>
> > >> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey Antonov <
> antonovserge...@gmail.com
> > >:
> > >>
> > >>> Maxim,
> > >>>
> > >>> I will do that on monday (20/01).
> > >>>
> > >>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim Muzafarov < mmu...@apache.org >:
> > >>>
> >  Sergey,
> > 
> > 
> >  Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts [1] [2]?
> > 
> >  [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> >  [2]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
> > 
> >  On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com >
> >  wrote:
> >  >
> >  > Hello!
> >  >
> >  > I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra Store tests. Can you
> >  please
> >  > comment on the ticket?
> >  >
> >  > I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much effort (there's chaos
> with
> >  > jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should be split up as a
> separate
> >  ticket
> >  > to be done later.
> >  >
> >  > Regards,
> >  > --
> >  > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir Pligin <
> vova199...@yandex.ru
> > >:
> >  >
> >  > > Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to have your patch
> included
> >  into 2.8
> >  > > scope.
> >  > > I'd like to give my two cent as well. For example we have
> > vulnerable
> >  > > dependencies here:
> >  > > modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml - commons-beanutils
> >  > > modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive Jackson from Curator
> >  > >
> >  > > I'd suggest to uprgrade commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils to
> > 1.9.4
> >  and
> >  > > override com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind to our
> common
> >  jackson
> >  > > version from other modules.
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > --
> >  > > Sent from:
> > 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Alexey Goncharuk]

Maxim,

I took a quick look at IGNITE-12456 and I am not sure it's about data
corruption. In the attached logs blocked system threads are reported,
however, there is no enough information to investigate the issue (the full
thread dump was not attached). I asked the ticket creator to attach missing
pieces.

Should we consider moving this ticket to a next release?

пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 08:54, Zhenya Stanilovsky :

>
> Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in master, if no objections, can
> u merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
>
> >Igniters,
> >
> >
> >Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release issues:
> >
> >IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
> >*[Unassigned]* OPEN
> >IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type*
> >[Unassigned]* OPEN
> >IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use example-ignite.xml config
> >*[Unassigned]* OPEN
> >
> >IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes
> getting
> >down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
> >IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node client and server nodes
> >restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
> >IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API Improvement [Nikolay Izhikov]
> >Blocker IN PROGRESS
> >
> >IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline enabled flag calculated
> >incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> >IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be deactivatable [Sergei
> >Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> >IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to the public API Improvement
> >[Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
> >
> >
> >[1]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
> >[2]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
> >[3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
> >[8]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
> >[3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
> >[6]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
> >[7]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
> >[9]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470
> >[5]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552
> >
> >
> >On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Sergey Antonov < antonovserge...@gmail.com
> >
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Maxim,
> >>
> >> Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all is started.
> >>
> >> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> >>
> >> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey Antonov < antonovserge...@gmail.com
> >:
> >>
> >>> Maxim,
> >>>
> >>> I will do that on monday (20/01).
> >>>
> >>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim Muzafarov < mmu...@apache.org >:
> >>>
>  Sergey,
> 
> 
>  Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts [1] [2]?
> 
>  [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
>  [2]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
> 
>  On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com >
>  wrote:
>  >
>  > Hello!
>  >
>  > I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra Store tests. Can you
>  please
>  > comment on the ticket?
>  >
>  > I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much effort (there's chaos with
>  > jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should be split up as a separate
>  ticket
>  > to be done later.
>  >
>  > Regards,
>  > --
>  > Ilya Kasnacheev
>  >
>  >
>  > ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir Pligin < vova199...@yandex.ru
> >:
>  >
>  > > Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to have your patch included
>  into 2.8
>  > > scope.
>  > > I'd like to give my two cent as well. For example we have
> vulnerable
>  > > dependencies here:
>  > > modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml - commons-beanutils
>  > > modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive Jackson from Curator
>  > >
>  > > I'd suggest to uprgrade commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils to
> 1.9.4
>  and
>  > > override com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind to our common
>  jackson
>  > > version from other modules.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > --
>  > > Sent from:
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>  > >
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> BR, Sergey Antonov
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> BR, Sergey Antonov
> >>
>
>
>
>

Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Zhenya Stanilovsky]

Maxim, performance fix issue [1] already in master, if no objections, can u 
merge it into 2.8 ? Thanks !
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12547
 
>Igniters,
>
>
>Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release issues:
>
>IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
>*[Unassigned]* OPEN
>IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type*
>[Unassigned]* OPEN
>IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use example-ignite.xml config
>*[Unassigned]* OPEN
>
>IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes getting
>down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
>IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node client and server nodes
>restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
>IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API Improvement [Nikolay Izhikov]
>Blocker IN PROGRESS
>
>IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline enabled flag calculated
>incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
>IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be deactivatable [Sergei
>Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
>IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to the public API Improvement
>[Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
>
>
>[1]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
>[2]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
>[3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
>[8]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
>[3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
>[6]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
>[7]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
>[9]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470
>[5]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552
>
>
>On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Sergey Antonov < antonovserge...@gmail.com >
>wrote:
> 
>> Maxim,
>>
>> Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all is started.
>>
>> [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
>>
>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey Antonov < antonovserge...@gmail.com >:
>>
>>> Maxim,
>>>
>>> I will do that on monday (20/01).
>>>
>>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim Muzafarov < mmu...@apache.org >:
>>>
 Sergey,


 Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts [1] [2]?

 [1]  https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
 [2]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256

 On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya Kasnacheev < ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com >
 wrote:
 >
 > Hello!
 >
 > I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra Store tests. Can you
 please
 > comment on the ticket?
 >
 > I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much effort (there's chaos with
 > jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should be split up as a separate
 ticket
 > to be done later.
 >
 > Regards,
 > --
 > Ilya Kasnacheev
 >
 >
 > ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir Pligin < vova199...@yandex.ru >:
 >
 > > Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to have your patch included
 into 2.8
 > > scope.
 > > I'd like to give my two cent as well. For example we have vulnerable
 > > dependencies here:
 > > modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml - commons-beanutils
 > > modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive Jackson from Curator
 > >
 > > I'd suggest to uprgrade commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils to 1.9.4
 and
 > > override com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind to our common
 jackson
 > > version from other modules.
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > --
 > > Sent from:  http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
 > >

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> BR, Sergey Antonov
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> BR, Sergey Antonov
>> 
 
 
 
 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Igniters,


Here is the actual list of BLOCKER release issues:

IGNITE-12456 Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load test
*[Unassigned]* OPEN
IGNITE-12489 Error during purges by expiration: Unknown page type*
[Unassigned]* OPEN
IGNITE-8641 SpringDataExample should use example-ignite.xml config
*[Unassigned]* OPEN

IGNITE-12398 Apache Ignite Cluster(Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes getting
down [Emmanouil Gkatziouras] OPEN
IGNITE-9184 Cluster hangs during concurrent node client and server nodes
restart [Dmitriy Sorokin] IN PROGRESS
IGNITE-12553 [IEP-35] public Java metric API Improvement [Nikolay Izhikov]
Blocker IN PROGRESS

IGNITE-12227 Default auto-adjust baseline enabled flag calculated
incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE
IGNITE-12470 Pme-free switch feature should be deactivatable [Sergei
Ryzhov] PATCH AVAILABLE
IGNITE-12552 [IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to the public API Improvement
[Nikolay Izhikov] PATCH AVAILABLE


[1]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12456
[2]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12489
[3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8641
[8]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12398
[3]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9184
[6]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553
[7]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227
[9]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470
[5]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552


On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 19:11, Sergey Antonov 
wrote:

> Maxim,
>
> Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all is started.
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
>
> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey Antonov :
>
>> Maxim,
>>
>> I will do that on monday (20/01).
>>
>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim Muzafarov :
>>
>>> Sergey,
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts [1] [2]?
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
>>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya Kasnacheev 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hello!
>>> >
>>> > I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra Store tests. Can you
>>> please
>>> > comment on the ticket?
>>> >
>>> > I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much effort (there's chaos with
>>> > jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should be split up as a separate
>>> ticket
>>> > to be done later.
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > --
>>> > Ilya Kasnacheev
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir Pligin :
>>> >
>>> > > Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to have your patch included
>>> into 2.8
>>> > > scope.
>>> > > I'd like to give my two cent as well. For example we have vulnerable
>>> > > dependencies here:
>>> > >   modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml - commons-beanutils
>>> > >   modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive Jackson from Curator
>>> > >
>>> > > I'd suggest to uprgrade commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils to 1.9.4
>>> and
>>> > > override com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind to our common
>>> jackson
>>> > > version from other modules.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>>> > >
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> BR, Sergey Antonov
>>
>
>
> --
> BR, Sergey Antonov
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Sergey Antonov]

Maxim,

Conflicts in pr [1] are resolved. TC Run all is started.

[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238

пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 16:04, Sergey Antonov :

> Maxim,
>
> I will do that on monday (20/01).
>
> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim Muzafarov :
>
>> Sergey,
>>
>>
>> Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts [1] [2]?
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
>>
>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya Kasnacheev 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello!
>> >
>> > I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra Store tests. Can you please
>> > comment on the ticket?
>> >
>> > I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much effort (there's chaos with
>> > jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should be split up as a separate
>> ticket
>> > to be done later.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > --
>> > Ilya Kasnacheev
>> >
>> >
>> > ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir Pligin :
>> >
>> > > Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to have your patch included
>> into 2.8
>> > > scope.
>> > > I'd like to give my two cent as well. For example we have vulnerable
>> > > dependencies here:
>> > >   modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml - commons-beanutils
>> > >   modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive Jackson from Curator
>> > >
>> > > I'd suggest to uprgrade commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils to 1.9.4
>> and
>> > > override com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind to our common
>> jackson
>> > > version from other modules.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>> > >
>>
>
>
> --
> BR, Sergey Antonov
>


-- 
BR, Sergey Antonov

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Sergey Antonov]

Maxim,

I will do that on monday (20/01).

пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 13:08, Maxim Muzafarov :

> Sergey,
>
>
> Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts [1] [2]?
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
>
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya Kasnacheev 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello!
> >
> > I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra Store tests. Can you please
> > comment on the ticket?
> >
> > I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much effort (there's chaos with
> > jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should be split up as a separate
> ticket
> > to be done later.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> >
> > ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir Pligin :
> >
> > > Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to have your patch included
> into 2.8
> > > scope.
> > > I'd like to give my two cent as well. For example we have vulnerable
> > > dependencies here:
> > >   modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml - commons-beanutils
> > >   modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive Jackson from Curator
> > >
> > > I'd suggest to uprgrade commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils to 1.9.4
> and
> > > override com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind to our common
> jackson
> > > version from other modules.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > >
>


-- 
BR, Sergey Antonov

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Sergey,


Can you, please, resolve the PR conflicts [1] [2]?

[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:59, Ilya Kasnacheev  wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra Store tests. Can you please
> comment on the ticket?
>
> I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much effort (there's chaos with
> jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should be split up as a separate ticket
> to be done later.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir Pligin :
>
> > Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to have your patch included into 2.8
> > scope.
> > I'd like to give my two cent as well. For example we have vulnerable
> > dependencies here:
> >   modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml - commons-beanutils
> >   modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive Jackson from Curator
> >
> > I'd suggest to uprgrade commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils to 1.9.4 and
> > override com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind to our common jackson
> > version from other modules.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> >

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Ilya Kasnacheev]

Hello!

I have bumped beanutils and re-ran Cassandra Store tests. Can you please
comment on the ticket?

I think that fixing ZooKeeper is too much effort (there's chaos with
jackson vs. jackson-asl), maybe it should be split up as a separate ticket
to be done later.

Regards,
-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:31, Vladimir Pligin :

> Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to have your patch included into 2.8
> scope.
> I'd like to give my two cent as well. For example we have vulnerable
> dependencies here:
>   modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml - commons-beanutils
>   modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive Jackson from Curator
>
> I'd suggest to uprgrade commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils to 1.9.4 and
> override com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind to our common jackson
> version from other modules.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Alexey Goncharuk]

Folks,

There might be an API-related blocker for 2.8, please join the 'Internal
classes are exposed in public API' dev-list discussion.

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Vladimir Pligin]

Thanks, Ilya. It would be really great to have your patch included into 2.8
scope.
I'd like to give my two cent as well. For example we have vulnerable
dependencies here:
  modules/cassandra/store/pom.xml - commons-beanutils
  modules/zookeeper/pom.xml - transitive Jackson from Curator

I'd suggest to uprgrade commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils to 1.9.4 and
override com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind to our common jackson
version from other modules. 



--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Ilya Kasnacheev]

 would be beneficial to upgrade these dependencies to the latest
>> > maintenance version found in Maven Central.
>> > For example, there is spring.data-2.0 2.0.*14*.RELEASE.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > --
>> > Ilya Kasnacheev
>> >
>> >
>> > чт, 26 дек. 2019 г. в 19:32, Denis Magda :
>> >
>> > > A huge +1 for adding Spring Data related fixes/improvements. Ilya is
>> > right
>> > > that Spring Data related questions sparked last time due to missing
>> > support
>> > > of 2.2 version.
>> > >
>> > > Ilya, could you elaborate on what you mean under "bumping the
>> versions"?
>> > Do
>> > > you suggest performing a straightforward upgrade of
>> "ignite-spring-data"
>> > to
>> > > version 2.2 and introducing "ignite-spring-data-{old-version"} for the
>> > > previous versions? If it's so, I fully agree with the proposal.
>> > >
>> > > -
>> > > Denis
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 4:52 AM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>> > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hello!
>> > > >
>> > > > I propose to add the following ticket to the scope:
>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12259 (3 commits, be
>> > > careful
>> > > > with release version)
>> > > >
>> > > > Adding tickets to scope surely seems crazy now, but I will provide
>> the
>> > > > following considerations:
>> > > > * This is Spring Data 2.2 integration, which we currently do not
>> have,
>> > > > leading to lots of confused questions on stack overflow and mailing
>> > list.
>> > > > Spring Data is important to our public image since many people may
>> > learn
>> > > > about out project by starting with Spring Data.
>> > > >
>> > > > * It has zero code impact outside of its own module (just 2 POM file
>> > > > touched and that's all).
>> > > >
>> > > > * The core was ready since early November but, due to gmail quirk,
>> we
>> > did
>> > > > not react to it in time.
>> > > >
>> > > > WDYT?
>> > > >
>> > > > Another semi-related question. *Should we bump our dependencies'
>> > versions
>> > > > before releasing 2.8?* I talk mainly about spring and hibernate
>> > > > dependencies. We could switch them to their latest maintenance
>> versions
>> > > to
>> > > > avoid shipping default links to outdated packages.
>> > > >
>> > > > I think this is one of things that are very hard to do between
>> > releases,
>> > > so
>> > > > I think this dependencies bumping should be a part of a formal
>> > > > release/testing cycle, and then be backported to master.
>> > > >
>> > > > I could volunteer to do that myself, if we agree to merge these
>> version
>> > > > upgrades to ignite-2.8 and then re-test.
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > > --
>> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > вт, 24 дек. 2019 г. в 13:22, Zhenya Stanilovsky
>> > > > > > > >:
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Igniters, i`l try to compare 2.8 release candidate vs 2.7.6,
>> > > > > last sha 2.8 was build from :  9d114f3137f92aebc2562a
>> > > > > i use yardstick benchmarks, 4 bare machine with:  2x Xeon X5570
>> 96Gb
>> > > > 512GB
>> > > > > SSD 2048GB HDD 10GB/s
>> > > > > 1 for  client (driver) and 3 for servers.
>> > > > > this mappings for graphs and real yardstick tests:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > atomic-put: IgnitePutBenchmark
>> > > > > sql-merge-query: IgniteSqlMergeQueryBenchmark
>> > > > > atomic-get: IgniteGetBenchmark
>> > > > > tx-get: IgniteGetTxBenchmark
>> > > > > tx-put: IgnitePutTxBenchmark
>> > > > > atomic-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllBenchmark
>> > > > > tx-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllTxBenchmark
>> > > > >
>> > > > > cacheMode — partitioned
>> > > > > CacheWriteSynchronizationMode.FULL_SYNC
>> > > > > 1 backup
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 1. wal = log_only 2. wal = none 3. persistence disabled.
>> > > > > Thanks Maxim for wiki page [1]
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [1]
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
>> > > > >
>> > > > > do we need some bisect or other work here ?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >--- Forwarded message ---
>> > > > > >From: "Maxim Muzafarov" < mmu...@apache.org >
>> > > > > >To:  dev@ignite.apache.org
>> > > > > >Cc:
>> > > > > >Subject: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]
>> > > > > >Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:44:31 +0300
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Igniters,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >It's almost a year has passed since the last major Apache Ignite
>> 2.7
>> > > > > >has been released. We've accumulated a lot of performance
>> > improvements
>> > > > > >and a lot of new features which are waiting for their release
>> date.
>> > > > > >Here is my list of the most interesting things from my point
>> since
>> > the
>> > > > > >last major release:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Service Grid,
>> > > > > >Monitoring,
>> > > > > >Recovery Read
>> > > > > >BLT auto-adjust,
>> > > > > >PDS compression,
>> > > > > >WAL page compression,
>> > > > > >Thin client: best effort affinity,
>> > > > > >Thin client: transactions support (not yet)
>> > > > > >SQL query history
>> > > > > >SQL statistics
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >I think we should no longer wait and freeze the master branch
>> > anymore
>> > > > > >and prepare the next major release by the end of the year.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >I propose to discuss Time, Scope of Apache Ignite 2.8 release and
>> > also
>> > > > > >I want to propose myself to be the release manager of the
>> planning
>> > > > > >release.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Scope Freeze: November 4, 2019
>> > > > > >Code Freeze: November 18, 2019
>> > > > > >Voting Date: December 10, 2019
>> > > > > >Release Date: December 17, 2019
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >WDYT?
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Alexey,

I think yes. Otherwise, we will never finish.

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 12:01, Alexey Goncharuk
 wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> While I agree with Ivan that IGNITE-12531
>  should be fixed in
> 2.8, I also share Nikolay's concern regarding the 2.8 scope inflation.
> Should we consider fixing only blockers for 2.8.0 and moving the
> remaining tickets to a maintenance releases 2.8.1, 2.8.2, etc?
>
> --AG
>
> вт, 14 янв. 2020 г. в 11:08, Alexei Scherbakov  >:
>
> > This looks really bad.
> >
> > Let's fix it before releasing.
> >
> > пн, 13 янв. 2020 г. в 18:50, Ivan Rakov :
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > Seems like we have another blocker for 2.8 [1].
> > > Impact: after migration of persistent cluster from 2.7- to 2.8 any
> > updates
> > > of baseline topology are not persisted.
> > >
> > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12531
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 6:14 PM Sergey Antonov <
> > antonovserge...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Igniters, I got green TC Bit visas [1] [2] for patch and commit revert.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://mtcga.gridgain.com/pr.html?serverId=apache=IgniteTests24Java8_RunAllNightly=ignite-2.8=pull%2F7238%2Fhead=Latest
> > > >
> > > > [2]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://mtcga.gridgain.com/pr.html?serverId=apache=IgniteTests24Java8_RunAllNightly=ignite-2.8=pull%2F7239%2Fhead=Latest
> > > >
> > > > пн, 13 янв. 2020 г., 17:51 Maxim Muzafarov :
> > > >
> > > > > Sergey,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you. I also do not support @IgniteExperemental annotation only
> > > > > for solving the current case of compatibility issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > I like your second suggestion to revert the issue [2] from 2.8
> > release
> > > > > by applying [1] PR. I'm going to apply this patch [1] within the next
> > > > > three days.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any objections?
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 17:59, Sergey Antonov <
> > > antonovserge...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guys, I created two pull requests [1] [2] for 2.8 release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First of them [1] is a patch with ticket [3] for ignite-2.8 branch.
> > > > > > Second [2] is a revert of ticket [4] from 2.8 release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm waiting TC run all nightly results for both PRs. I'll write
> > > update
> > > > > when
> > > > > > TC runs will be ok.
> > > > > > I'm okay with both proposals (add ticket [1] to release, remove
> > > > read-only
> > > > > > feature from 2.8 release scope). But I'm not okay with
> > > > > @IgniteExperemental
> > > > > > annotation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7239
> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12225
> > > > > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > пт, 10 янв. 2020 г. в 14:21, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> > > > >  > > > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ivan, if i correctly understand, you suggest additional
> > > > «expiremental»
> > > > > > > stuff only for hiding already leaked RO interface ?
> > > > > > > poor approach as for me.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Folks,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Some thoughts:
> > > > > > > >* Releasing an API with known fallacies sounds really bad thing
> > to
> > > > me.
> > > > > > > >It can have a negative consequences for a whole project for
> > years.
> > > > My
> > > > > > > >opinion here that we should resolve the problem with this API
> > > > somehow
> > > > > > > >before release.
> > > > > > > >* We can mark cluster read-only API (without enum) as
> > experimental
> > > > and
> > > > > > > >change the API in e.g. 2.8.1.
> > > > > > > >* We can try to exclude read-only API from 2.8 at all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >What do you think?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >пт, 10 янв. 2020 г. в 11:20, Alex Plehanov <
> > > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Guys,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> There is also an issue with cluster activation by thin
> > clients.
> > > > This
> > > > > > > >> feature (.NET thin client API change and protocol change) was
> > > > added
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > >> without any discussion on dev-list. Sergey's patch [2]
> > deprecate
> > > > > methods
> > > > > > > >> "IgniteCluster.active(boolean)" and "IgniteCluster.active()",
> > > but
> > > > > > > didn't do
> > > > > > > >> this for thin clients. If we want to include IGNITE-12225 to
> > 2.8
> > > > we
> > > > > also
> > > > > > > >> should not forget about thin client changes, since it will be
> > > > > strange
> > > > > > > if we
> > > > > > > >> introduce some methods to thin client API and protocol and in
> > > the
> > > > > same
> > > > > > > >> Ignite 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Alexey Goncharuk]

Folks,

While I agree with Ivan that IGNITE-12531
 should be fixed in
2.8, I also share Nikolay's concern regarding the 2.8 scope inflation.
Should we consider fixing only blockers for 2.8.0 and moving the
remaining tickets to a maintenance releases 2.8.1, 2.8.2, etc?

--AG

вт, 14 янв. 2020 г. в 11:08, Alexei Scherbakov :

> This looks really bad.
>
> Let's fix it before releasing.
>
> пн, 13 янв. 2020 г. в 18:50, Ivan Rakov :
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> > Seems like we have another blocker for 2.8 [1].
> > Impact: after migration of persistent cluster from 2.7- to 2.8 any
> updates
> > of baseline topology are not persisted.
> >
> > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12531
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 6:14 PM Sergey Antonov <
> antonovserge...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Igniters, I got green TC Bit visas [1] [2] for patch and commit revert.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://mtcga.gridgain.com/pr.html?serverId=apache=IgniteTests24Java8_RunAllNightly=ignite-2.8=pull%2F7238%2Fhead=Latest
> > >
> > > [2]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://mtcga.gridgain.com/pr.html?serverId=apache=IgniteTests24Java8_RunAllNightly=ignite-2.8=pull%2F7239%2Fhead=Latest
> > >
> > > пн, 13 янв. 2020 г., 17:51 Maxim Muzafarov :
> > >
> > > > Sergey,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you. I also do not support @IgniteExperemental annotation only
> > > > for solving the current case of compatibility issues.
> > > >
> > > > I like your second suggestion to revert the issue [2] from 2.8
> release
> > > > by applying [1] PR. I'm going to apply this patch [1] within the next
> > > > three days.
> > > >
> > > > Any objections?
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 17:59, Sergey Antonov <
> > antonovserge...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Guys, I created two pull requests [1] [2] for 2.8 release.
> > > > >
> > > > > First of them [1] is a patch with ticket [3] for ignite-2.8 branch.
> > > > > Second [2] is a revert of ticket [4] from 2.8 release.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm waiting TC run all nightly results for both PRs. I'll write
> > update
> > > > when
> > > > > TC runs will be ok.
> > > > > I'm okay with both proposals (add ticket [1] to release, remove
> > > read-only
> > > > > feature from 2.8 release scope). But I'm not okay with
> > > > @IgniteExperemental
> > > > > annotation.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7239
> > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
> > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12225
> > > > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > пт, 10 янв. 2020 г. в 14:21, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> > > >  > > > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ivan, if i correctly understand, you suggest additional
> > > «expiremental»
> > > > > > stuff only for hiding already leaked RO interface ?
> > > > > > poor approach as for me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Folks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Some thoughts:
> > > > > > >* Releasing an API with known fallacies sounds really bad thing
> to
> > > me.
> > > > > > >It can have a negative consequences for a whole project for
> years.
> > > My
> > > > > > >opinion here that we should resolve the problem with this API
> > > somehow
> > > > > > >before release.
> > > > > > >* We can mark cluster read-only API (without enum) as
> experimental
> > > and
> > > > > > >change the API in e.g. 2.8.1.
> > > > > > >* We can try to exclude read-only API from 2.8 at all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >пт, 10 янв. 2020 г. в 11:20, Alex Plehanov <
> > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Guys,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> There is also an issue with cluster activation by thin
> clients.
> > > This
> > > > > > >> feature (.NET thin client API change and protocol change) was
> > > added
> > > > by
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >> without any discussion on dev-list. Sergey's patch [2]
> deprecate
> > > > methods
> > > > > > >> "IgniteCluster.active(boolean)" and "IgniteCluster.active()",
> > but
> > > > > > didn't do
> > > > > > >> this for thin clients. If we want to include IGNITE-12225 to
> 2.8
> > > we
> > > > also
> > > > > > >> should not forget about thin client changes, since it will be
> > > > strange
> > > > > > if we
> > > > > > >> introduce some methods to thin client API and protocol and in
> > the
> > > > same
> > > > > > >> Ignite version deprecate these methods for servers and thick
> > > > clients.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> [1]:  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11709
> > > > > > >> [2]:  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12225
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> пт, 10 янв. 2020 г. в 10:24, Zhenya Stanilovsky <
> > > > > > arzamas...@mail.ru.invalid
> > > > > > >> >:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > 

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Alexei Scherbakov]

2017-7525,
> > > > > CVE-2018-1000873,
> > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2018-14718, CVE-2018-5968, CVE-2018-7489,
> > > CVE-2019-10172,
> > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-14540, CVE-2019-16335, CVE-2019-17267
> > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> netty-all-4.1.29.Final.jar
> > > > > >> > >>> (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty-all@4.1.29.Final
> > > > > >> > >>>>> ,
> > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:4.1.29:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > CVE-2019-16869
> > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> One or more dependencies were identified with known
> > > > > >> > >>> vulnerabilities
> > > > > >> > >>>>> in
> > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> ignite-camel:
> > > > > >> > >>>>&g

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Ivan Rakov]

gt; > > > CVE-2019-14439,
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-14540, CVE-2019-16335, CVE-2019-16942,
> > > > CVE-2019-16943,
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-17267, CVE-2019-17531
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> guava-16.0.1.jar
> (pkg:maven/com.google.guava/guava@16.0.1
> > ,
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:google:guava:16.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > CVE-2018-10237
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> jackson-mapper-asl-1.9.13.jar
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> (pkg:maven/org.codehaus.jackson/jackson-mapper-asl@1.9.13
> > ,
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:fasterxml:jackson:1.9.13:*:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > cpe:2.3:a:fasterxml:jackson-mapper-asl:1.9.13:*:*:*:*:*:*:*)
> > > > :
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2017-15095, CVE-2017-17485, CVE-2017-7525,
> > > > CVE-2018-1000873,
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2018-14718, CVE-2018-5968, CVE-2018-7489,
> > CVE-2019-10172,
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-14540, CVE-2019-16335, CVE-2019-17267
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> netty-all-4.1.29.Final.jar
> > > > >> > >>> (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty-all@4.1.29.Final
> > > > >> > >>>>> ,
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:4.1.29:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > CVE-2019-16869
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> One or more dependencies were identified with known
> > > > >> > >>> vulnerabilities
> > > > >> > >>>>> in
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> ignite-camel:
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> camel-core-2.22.0.jar
> > > > >> > >>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.camel/camel-core@2.22.0,
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:2.22.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > CVE-2018-8041,
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-0188, CVE-2019-0194
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> >
> > > >
> >
> camel-core-2.22.0.jar/META-INF/maven/org.apache.camel/spi-annotations/pom.xml
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.camel/spi-annotations@2.22.0,
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:2.22.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > CVE-2018-8041,
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-0188, CVE-2019-0194
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> One or more dependencies were identified with known
> > > > >> > >>> vulnerabilities
> > > > >> > >>>>> in
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> ignite-storm:
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> storm-core-1.1.1.jar
> > > > (pkg:maven/org.apache.storm/storm-core@1.1.1
> > > > >> > >>> ,
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:storm:1.1.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > CVE-2018-11779,
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2018-1331, CVE-2018-1332, CVE-2018-8008,
> > CVE-2019-0202
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> >
> > > >
> >
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-servlet/pom.xml
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > (pkg:maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-servlet@7.6.13.v20130916,
> > > > >

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Sergey Antonov]

gt; > > >> > >>>>>>>> ignite-storm:
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> storm-core-1.1.1.jar
> > > (pkg:maven/org.apache.storm/storm-core@1.1.1
> > > >> > >>> ,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:storm:1.1.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> CVE-2018-11779,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2018-1331, CVE-2018-1332, CVE-2018-8008,
> CVE-2019-0202
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> >
> > >
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-servlet/pom.xml
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> (pkg:maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-servlet@7.6.13.v20130916,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:eclipse:jetty:7.6.13:20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:jetty:jetty:7.6.13.v20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > >> > >>>>> CVE-2019-10247
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> >
> > >
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.apache.httpcomponents/httpclient/pom.xml
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.httpcomponents/httpclient@4.3.3,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:httpclient:4.3.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > CVE-2014-3577,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2015-5262
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/com.google.guava/guava/pom.xml
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/com.google.guava/guava@16.0.1,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:google:guava:16.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> CVE-2018-10237
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/io.netty/netty/pom.xml
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty@3.9.0.Final,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:3.9.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> CVE-2014-0193,
> > > >> > >>>>>> CVE-2014-3488,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2015-2156, CVE-2019-16869, POODLE vulnerability in
> > > SSLv3.0
> > > >> > >>>>> support
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> >
> &

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

;>
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> >
> > >
> camel-core-2.22.0.jar/META-INF/maven/org.apache.camel/spi-annotations/pom.xml
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.camel/spi-annotations@2.22.0,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:2.22.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> CVE-2018-8041,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-0188, CVE-2019-0194
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> One or more dependencies were identified with known
> > > >> > >>> vulnerabilities
> > > >> > >>>>> in
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> ignite-storm:
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> storm-core-1.1.1.jar
> > > (pkg:maven/org.apache.storm/storm-core@1.1.1
> > > >> > >>> ,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:storm:1.1.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> CVE-2018-11779,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2018-1331, CVE-2018-1332, CVE-2018-8008,
> CVE-2019-0202
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> >
> > >
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-servlet/pom.xml
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> (pkg:maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-servlet@7.6.13.v20130916,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:eclipse:jetty:7.6.13:20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:jetty:jetty:7.6.13.v20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > >> > >>>>> CVE-2019-10247
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> >
> > >
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.apache.httpcomponents/httpclient/pom.xml
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.httpcomponents/httpclient@4.3.3,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:httpclient:4.3.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > CVE-2014-3577,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2015-5262
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/com.google.guava/guava/pom.xml
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/com.google.guava/guava@16.0.1,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:google:guava:16.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> CVE-2018-10237
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/io.netty/netty/pom.xml
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty@3.9.0.Final,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:3.9.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> CVE-2014-0193,
> > > >> > >>>>>> CVE-2014-3488,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2015-2156, CVE-2019-16869, POODLE vulnerability in
> > > SSLv3.0
> > > >> > >>>>> support
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> >
> &

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:2.22.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2018-8041,
> > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-0188, CVE-2019-0194
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> >
> > camel-core-2.22.0.jar/META-INF/maven/org.apache.camel/spi-annotations/pom.xml
> > >> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.camel/spi-annotations@2.22.0,
> > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:2.22.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2018-8041,
> > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-0188, CVE-2019-0194
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>> One or more dependencies were identified with known
> > >> > >>> vulnerabilities
> > >> > >>>>> in
> > >> > >>>>>>>> ignite-storm:
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>> storm-core-1.1.1.jar
> > (pkg:maven/org.apache.storm/storm-core@1.1.1
> > >> > >>> ,
> > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:storm:1.1.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2018-11779,
> > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2018-1331, CVE-2018-1332, CVE-2018-8008, CVE-2019-0202
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> >
> > storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-servlet/pom.xml
> > >> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-servlet@7.6.13.v20130916,
> > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:eclipse:jetty:7.6.13:20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:jetty:jetty:7.6.13.v20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > >> > >>>>> CVE-2019-10247
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> >
> > storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.apache.httpcomponents/httpclient/pom.xml
> > >> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.httpcomponents/httpclient@4.3.3,
> > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:httpclient:4.3.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > CVE-2014-3577,
> > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2015-5262
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/com.google.guava/guava/pom.xml
> > >> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/com.google.guava/guava@16.0.1,
> > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:google:guava:16.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2018-10237
> > >> > >>>>>>>> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/io.netty/netty/pom.xml
> > >> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty@3.9.0.Final,
> > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:3.9.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2014-0193,
> > >> > >>>>>> CVE-2014-3488,
> > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2015-2156, CVE-2019-16869, POODLE vulnerability in
> > SSLv3.0
> > >> > >>>>> support
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> >
> > storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-server/pom.xml
> > >> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-server@7.6.13.v20130916,
> > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:eclipse:jetty:7.6.13:20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:jetty:jetty:7.6.13.v20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > >> > >>>>> CVE-2011-4461,
> > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2017-7656, CVE-2017-7657, CVE-2017-7658, CVE-2017-9735,
> > >> > >>>>>> CVE-2019-10241,
> > >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-10247
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Sergey Antonov]

google:guava:16.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2018-10237
> >> > >>>>>>>> jackson-mapper-asl-1.9.13.jar
> >> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.codehaus.jackson/jackson-mapper-asl@1.9.13,
> >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:fasterxml:jackson:1.9.13:*:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:fasterxml:jackson-mapper-asl:1.9.13:*:*:*:*:*:*:*)
> :
> >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2017-15095, CVE-2017-17485, CVE-2017-7525,
> CVE-2018-1000873,
> >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2018-14718, CVE-2018-5968, CVE-2018-7489, CVE-2019-10172,
> >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-14540, CVE-2019-16335, CVE-2019-17267
> >> > >>>>>>>> netty-all-4.1.29.Final.jar
> >> > >>> (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty-all@4.1.29.Final
> >> > >>>>> ,
> >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:4.1.29:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2019-16869
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> One or more dependencies were identified with known
> >> > >>> vulnerabilities
> >> > >>>>> in
> >> > >>>>>>>> ignite-camel:
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> camel-core-2.22.0.jar
> >> > >>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.camel/camel-core@2.22.0,
> >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:2.22.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2018-8041,
> >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-0188, CVE-2019-0194
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>
> >> >
> camel-core-2.22.0.jar/META-INF/maven/org.apache.camel/spi-annotations/pom.xml
> >> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.camel/spi-annotations@2.22.0,
> >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:2.22.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2018-8041,
> >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-0188, CVE-2019-0194
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> One or more dependencies were identified with known
> >> > >>> vulnerabilities
> >> > >>>>> in
> >> > >>>>>>>> ignite-storm:
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> storm-core-1.1.1.jar
> (pkg:maven/org.apache.storm/storm-core@1.1.1
> >> > >>> ,
> >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:storm:1.1.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2018-11779,
> >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2018-1331, CVE-2018-1332, CVE-2018-8008, CVE-2019-0202
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>
> >> >
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-servlet/pom.xml
> >> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-servlet@7.6.13.v20130916,
> >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:eclipse:jetty:7.6.13:20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:jetty:jetty:7.6.13.v20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> >> > >>>>> CVE-2019-10247
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>
> >> >
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.apache.httpcomponents/httpclient/pom.xml
> >> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.httpcomponents/httpclient@4.3.3,
> >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:httpclient:4.3.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> CVE-2014-3577,
> >> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2015-5262
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/com.google.guava/guava/pom.xml
> >> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/com.google.guava/guava@16.0.1,
> >> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:google:guava:16.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2018-10237
> >> > >>>>>>>> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/io.netty/netty/pom.xml
> >> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/io.netty/n

Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Zhenya Stanilovsky]

20130916,
>> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:eclipse:jetty:7.6.13:20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*,
>> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:jetty:jetty:7.6.13.v20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
>> > >>>>> CVE-2019-10247
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>
>> > storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.apache.httpcomponents/httpclient/pom.xml
>> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.httpcomponents/httpclient@4.3.3,
>> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:httpclient:4.3.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2014-3577,
>> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2015-5262
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/com.google.guava/guava/pom.xml
>> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/com.google.guava/guava@16.0.1,
>> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:google:guava:16.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2018-10237
>> > >>>>>>>> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/io.netty/netty/pom.xml
>> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty@3.9.0.Final,
>> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:3.9.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2014-0193,
>> > >>>>>> CVE-2014-3488,
>> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2015-2156, CVE-2019-16869, POODLE vulnerability in SSLv3.0
>> > >>>>> support
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>
>> > storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-server/pom.xml
>> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-server@7.6.13.v20130916,
>> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:eclipse:jetty:7.6.13:20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*,
>> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:jetty:jetty:7.6.13.v20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
>> > >>>>> CVE-2011-4461,
>> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2017-7656, CVE-2017-7657, CVE-2017-7658, CVE-2017-9735,
>> > >>>>>> CVE-2019-10241,
>> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-10247
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>
>> > storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-util/pom.xml
>> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-util@7.6.13.v20130916,
>> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:eclipse:jetty:7.6.13:20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*,
>> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:jetty:jetty:7.6.13.v20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
>> > >>>>> CVE-2011-4461,
>> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-10247
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>
>> > storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/commons-fileupload/commons-fileupload/pom.xml
>> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/commons-fileupload/commons-fileupload@1.3.2,
>> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:commons_fileupload:1.3.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
>> > >>>>>> CVE-2016-131
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>
>> > storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.apache.hadoop/hadoop-auth/pom.xml
>> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.hadoop/hadoop-auth@2.6.1,
>> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:hadoop:2.6.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2015-1776,
>> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2016-3086, CVE-2016-5001, CVE-2016-5393, CVE-2016-6811,
>> > >>>>>> CVE-2017-15713,
>> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2017-3161, CVE-2017-3162, CVE-2017-3166, CVE-2018-11768,
>> > >>>>>> CVE-2018-1296,
>> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2018-8009, CVE-2018-8029
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> One or more dependencies were identified with known
>> > >>> vulnerabilities
>> > >>>&g

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Sergey Antonov]

;> (pkg:maven/org.apache.camel/spi-annotations@2.22.0,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:2.22.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > CVE-2018-8041,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-0188, CVE-2019-0194
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> One or more dependencies were identified with known
> > > > > > >>> vulnerabilities
> > > > > > >>>>> in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> ignite-storm:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> storm-core-1.1.1.jar
> > > > (pkg:maven/org.apache.storm/storm-core@1.1.1
> > > > > > >>> ,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:storm:1.1.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > CVE-2018-11779,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2018-1331, CVE-2018-1332, CVE-2018-8008,
> CVE-2019-0202
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-servlet/pom.xml
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > (pkg:maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-servlet@7.6.13.v20130916
> > > ,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:eclipse:jetty:7.6.13:20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:jetty:jetty:7.6.13.v20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > > > > >>>>> CVE-2019-10247
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.apache.httpcomponents/httpclient/pom.xml
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.httpcomponents/httpclient@4.3.3,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:httpclient:4.3.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > > CVE-2014-3577,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2015-5262
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/com.google.guava/guava/pom.xml
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/com.google.guava/guava@16.0.1,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:google:guava:16.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > CVE-2018-10237
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/io.netty/netty/pom.xml
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty@3.9.0.Final,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:3.9.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > CVE-2014-0193,
> > > > > > >>>>>> CVE-2014-3488,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2015-2156, CVE-2019-16869, POODLE vulnerability in
> > > SSLv3.0
> > > > > > >>>>> support
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> >

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Alexey Zinoviev]

tty:4.1.29:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> CVE-2019-16869
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> One or more dependencies were identified with known
> > > > > >>> vulnerabilities
> > > > > >>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>> ignite-camel:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> camel-core-2.22.0.jar
> > > > > >>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.camel/camel-core@2.22.0,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:2.22.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > CVE-2018-8041,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-0188, CVE-2019-0194
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> camel-core-2.22.0.jar/META-INF/maven/org.apache.camel/spi-annotations/pom.xml
> > > > > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.camel/spi-annotations@2.22.0,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:camel:2.22.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > CVE-2018-8041,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-0188, CVE-2019-0194
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> One or more dependencies were identified with known
> > > > > >>> vulnerabilities
> > > > > >>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>> ignite-storm:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> storm-core-1.1.1.jar
> > > (pkg:maven/org.apache.storm/storm-core@1.1.1
> > > > > >>> ,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:storm:1.1.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > CVE-2018-11779,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2018-1331, CVE-2018-1332, CVE-2018-8008, CVE-2019-0202
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-servlet/pom.xml
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> (pkg:maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-servlet@7.6.13.v20130916
> > ,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:eclipse:jetty:7.6.13:20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:jetty:jetty:7.6.13.v20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > > > >>>>> CVE-2019-10247
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.apache.httpcomponents/httpclient/pom.xml
> > > > > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.httpcomponents/httpclient@4.3.3,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:httpclient:4.3.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > CVE-2014-3577,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2015-5262
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/com.google.guava/guava/pom.xml
> > > > > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/com.google.guava/guava@16.0.1,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:google:guava:16.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > CVE-2018-10237
> > > > > >>>>>>>> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/io.netty/netty/pom.xml
> > > > > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty@3.9.0.Final,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:3.9.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> CVE-2014-0193,
> > > > > >>>>>> CVE-2014-3488,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2015-2156, CVE-2019-16869, POODLE vulnerability in
> > SSLv3.0
> > > > > >>>>> support
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > &

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Вячеслав Коптилин]

omponents/httpclient@4.3.3,
> > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:httpclient:4.3.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > CVE-2014-3577,
> > > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2015-5262
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/com.google.guava/guava/pom.xml
> > > > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/com.google.guava/guava@16.0.1,
> > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:google:guava:16.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> CVE-2018-10237
> > > > >>>>>>>> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/io.netty/netty/pom.xml
> > > > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty@3.9.0.Final,
> > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:3.9.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2014-0193,
> > > > >>>>>> CVE-2014-3488,
> > > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2015-2156, CVE-2019-16869, POODLE vulnerability in
> SSLv3.0
> > > > >>>>> support
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> >
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-server/pom.xml
> > > > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-server@7.6.13.v20130916,
> > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:eclipse:jetty:7.6.13:20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:jetty:jetty:7.6.13.v20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > > >>>>> CVE-2011-4461,
> > > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2017-7656, CVE-2017-7657, CVE-2017-7658, CVE-2017-9735,
> > > > >>>>>> CVE-2019-10241,
> > > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-10247
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-util/pom.xml
> > > > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-util@7.6.13.v20130916,
> > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:eclipse:jetty:7.6.13:20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:jetty:jetty:7.6.13.v20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > > >>>>> CVE-2011-4461,
> > > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-10247
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> >
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/commons-fileupload/commons-fileupload/pom.xml
> > > > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/commons-fileupload/commons-fileupload@1.3.2,
> > > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:commons_fileupload:1.3.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > > >>>>>> CVE-2016-131
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.apache.hadoop/hadoop-auth/pom.xml

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Ilya Kasnacheev]

gt;>>>>>> storm-core-1.1.1.jar
> (pkg:maven/org.apache.storm/storm-core@1.1.1
> > > >>> ,
> > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:storm:1.1.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2018-11779,
> > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2018-1331, CVE-2018-1332, CVE-2018-8008, CVE-2019-0202
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-servlet/pom.xml
> > > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-servlet@7.6.13.v20130916,
> > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:eclipse:jetty:7.6.13:20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:jetty:jetty:7.6.13.v20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > >>>>> CVE-2019-10247
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.apache.httpcomponents/httpclient/pom.xml
> > > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.httpcomponents/httpclient@4.3.3,
> > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:httpclient:4.3.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> CVE-2014-3577,
> > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2015-5262
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/com.google.guava/guava/pom.xml
> > > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/com.google.guava/guava@16.0.1,
> > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:google:guava:16.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2018-10237
> > > >>>>>>>> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/io.netty/netty/pom.xml
> > > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty@3.9.0.Final,
> > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:3.9.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2014-0193,
> > > >>>>>> CVE-2014-3488,
> > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2015-2156, CVE-2019-16869, POODLE vulnerability in SSLv3.0
> > > >>>>> support
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-server/pom.xml
> > > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-server@7.6.13.v20130916,
> > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:eclipse:jetty:7.6.13:20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:jetty:jetty:7.6.13.v20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > >>>>> CVE-2011-4461,
> > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2017-7656, CVE-2017-7657, CVE-2017-7658, CVE-2017-9735,
> > > >>>>>> CVE-2019-10241,
> > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-10247
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-util/pom.xml
> > > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-util@7.6.13.v20130916,
> > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:eclipse:jetty:7.6.13:20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:jetty:jetty:7.6.13.v20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > >>>>> CVE-2011-4461,
> > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-10247
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/commons-fileupload/commons-fileupload/pom.xml
> > > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/commons-fileupload/commons-fileupload@1.3.2,
> > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:commons_fileupload:1.3.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > >>>>>> CVE-2016-131
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.apache.hadoop/hadoop-auth/pom.xml
> > > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.hadoop/hadoop-auth@2.6.1,
> > > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:hadoop:2.6.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2015-1776,
> > > >>>>>>>> CVE-2016-3086, CVE-2016-5001, CVE-2016-5393, CVE-2016-6811,
> > > >>>&g

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Ivan Pavlukhin]

; > >>>>>> CVE-2019-10241,
> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-10247
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>
> > storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-util/pom.xml
> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-util@7.6.13.v20130916,
> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:eclipse:jetty:7.6.13:20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:jetty:jetty:7.6.13.v20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > >>>>> CVE-2011-4461,
> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-10247
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> > storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/commons-fileupload/commons-fileupload/pom.xml
> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/commons-fileupload/commons-fileupload@1.3.2,
> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:commons_fileupload:1.3.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > >>>>>> CVE-2016-131
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>
> > storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.apache.hadoop/hadoop-auth/pom.xml
> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.hadoop/hadoop-auth@2.6.1,
> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:hadoop:2.6.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2015-1776,
> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2016-3086, CVE-2016-5001, CVE-2016-5393, CVE-2016-6811,
> > >>>>>> CVE-2017-15713,
> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2017-3161, CVE-2017-3162, CVE-2017-3166, CVE-2018-11768,
> > >>>>>> CVE-2018-1296,
> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2018-8009, CVE-2018-8029
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> One or more dependencies were identified with known
> > >>> vulnerabilities
> > >>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>> ignite-cassandra-store:
> > >>>>>>>> One or more dependencies were identified with known
> > >>> vulnerabilities
> > >>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>> ignite-cassandra-serializers:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> commons-beanutils-1.9.2.jar
> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/commons-beanutils/commons-beanutils@1.9.2,
> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:commons_beanutils:1.9.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > >>>>>> CVE-2019-10086
> > >>>>>>>> commons-collections-3.2.1.jar
> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/commons-collections/commons-collections@3.2.1,
> > >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:commons_collections:3.2.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > >>>>>> CVE-2015-6420,
> > >>>>>>>> CVE-2017-15708, Remote code execution
> > >>>>>>>> spring-core-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
> > >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.springframework/spring-core@4.3.18.RELEASE,
> > >>>>>>>>
&

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Alex Plehanov]

3.v20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> >>>>> CVE-2019-10247
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.apache.httpcomponents/httpclient/pom.xml
> >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.httpcomponents/httpclient@4.3.3,
> >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:httpclient:4.3.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2014-3577,
> >>>>>>>> CVE-2015-5262
> >>>>>>>>
> >>> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/com.google.guava/guava/pom.xml
> >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/com.google.guava/guava@16.0.1,
> >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:google:guava:16.0.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2018-10237
> >>>>>>>> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/io.netty/netty/pom.xml
> >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty@3.9.0.Final,
> >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:3.9.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2014-0193,
> >>>>>> CVE-2014-3488,
> >>>>>>>> CVE-2015-2156, CVE-2019-16869, POODLE vulnerability in SSLv3.0
> >>>>> support
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-server/pom.xml
> >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-server@7.6.13.v20130916,
> >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:eclipse:jetty:7.6.13:20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:jetty:jetty:7.6.13.v20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> >>>>> CVE-2011-4461,
> >>>>>>>> CVE-2017-7656, CVE-2017-7657, CVE-2017-7658, CVE-2017-9735,
> >>>>>> CVE-2019-10241,
> >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-10247
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-util/pom.xml
> >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.eclipse.jetty/jetty-util@7.6.13.v20130916,
> >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:eclipse:jetty:7.6.13:20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:jetty:jetty:7.6.13.v20130916:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> >>>>> CVE-2011-4461,
> >>>>>>>> CVE-2019-10247
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/commons-fileupload/commons-fileupload/pom.xml
> >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/commons-fileupload/commons-fileupload@1.3.2,
> >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:commons_fileupload:1.3.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> >>>>>> CVE-2016-131
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> storm-core-1.1.1.jar/META-INF/maven/org.apache.hadoop/hadoop-auth/pom.xml
> >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.hadoop/hadoop-auth@2.6.1,
> >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:hadoop:2.6.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2015-1776,
> >>>>>>>> CVE-2016-3086, CVE-2016-5001, CVE-2016-5393, CVE-2016-6811,
> >>>>>> CVE-2017-15713,
> >>>>>>>> CVE-2017-3161, CVE-2017-3162, CVE-2017-3166, CVE-2018-11768,
> >>>>>> CVE-2018-1296,
> >>>>>>>> CVE-2018-8009, CVE-2018-8029
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> One or more dependencies were identified with known
> >>> vulnerabilities
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> ignite-cassandra-store:
> >>>>>>>> One or more dependencies were identified with known
> >>> vulnerabilities
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> ignite-cassandra-serializers:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> commons-beanutils-1.9.2.jar
> >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/commons-beanutils/commons-beanutils@1.9.2,
> >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:commons_beanutils:1.9.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> >>>>>> CVE-2019-10086
> >>>>>>>> commons-collections-3.2.1.jar
> >>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/commons-collections/commons-collections@3.2.1,
> >>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:commons_collections:3.2.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> >>>>>> CVE-2015-6420,
> >>>>>>>> CVE-2017-15708, Remote code execution
> >>>>>>>> spring-c

Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Zhenya Stanilovsky]

.3:a:apache:hadoop:2.6.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2015-1776,
>>>>>>>> CVE-2016-3086, CVE-2016-5001, CVE-2016-5393, CVE-2016-6811,
>>>>>> CVE-2017-15713,
>>>>>>>> CVE-2017-3161, CVE-2017-3162, CVE-2017-3166, CVE-2018-11768,
>>>>>> CVE-2018-1296,
>>>>>>>> CVE-2018-8009, CVE-2018-8029
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One or more dependencies were identified with known
>>> vulnerabilities
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> ignite-cassandra-store:
>>>>>>>> One or more dependencies were identified with known
>>> vulnerabilities
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> ignite-cassandra-serializers:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> commons-beanutils-1.9.2.jar
>>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/commons-beanutils/commons-beanutils@1.9.2,
>>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:commons_beanutils:1.9.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
>>>>>> CVE-2019-10086
>>>>>>>> commons-collections-3.2.1.jar
>>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/commons-collections/commons-collections@3.2.1,
>>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:commons_collections:3.2.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
>>>>>> CVE-2015-6420,
>>>>>>>> CVE-2017-15708, Remote code execution
>>>>>>>> spring-core-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
>>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.springframework/spring-core@4.3.18.RELEASE,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> cpe:2.3:a:pivotal_software:spring_framework:4.3.18.release:*:*:*:*:*:*:*,
>>>>>>>>
>>> cpe:2.3:a:springsource:spring_framework:4.3.18.release:*:*:*:*:*:*:*,
>>>>>>>>
>>> cpe:2.3:a:vmware:springsource_spring_framework:4.3.18:*:*:*:*:*:*:*)
>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> CVE-2018-15756
>>>>>>>> netty-transport-4.1.27.Final.jar
>>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty-transport@4.1.27.Final,
>>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:4.1.27:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2019-16869
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One or more dependencies were identified with known
>>> vulnerabilities
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> ignite-flink:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> flink-hadoop-fs-1.5.0.jar
>>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.flink/flink-hadoop-fs@1.5.0
>>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:hadoop:1.5.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2016-5001,
>>>>>>>> CVE-2017-3161, CVE-2017-3162
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> flink-shaded-netty-4.0.27.Final-2.0.jar/META-INF/maven/io.netty/netty-all/pom.xml
>>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty-all@4.0.27.Final,
>>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:4.0.27:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2015-2156,
>>>>>> CVE-2016-4970,
>>>>>>>> CVE-2019-16869
>>>>>>>>
>>>>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Николай Ижиков]

>>>>>>> One or more dependencies were identified with known
>> vulnerabilities
>>>> in
>>>>>>> ignite-flink:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> flink-hadoop-fs-1.5.0.jar
>>>>> (pkg:maven/org.apache.flink/flink-hadoop-fs@1.5.0
>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:hadoop:1.5.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2016-5001,
>>>>>>> CVE-2017-3161, CVE-2017-3162
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> flink-shaded-netty-4.0.27.Final-2.0.jar/META-INF/maven/io.netty/netty-all/pom.xml
>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty-all@4.0.27.Final,
>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:4.0.27:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2015-2156,
>>>>> CVE-2016-4970,
>>>>>>> CVE-2019-16869
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> flink-shaded-jackson-2.7.9-3.0.jar/META-INF/maven/com.fasterxml.jackson.core/jackson-databind/pom.xml
>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/com.fasterxml.jackson.core/jackson-databind@2.7.9,
>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:fasterxml:jackson:2.7.9:*:*:*:*:*:*:*,
>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:fasterxml:jackson-databind:2.7.9:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
>>>>> CVE-2017-15095,
>>>>>>> CVE-2017-17485, CVE-2017-7525, CVE-2018-1000873, CVE-2018-11307,
>>>>>>> CVE-2018-12022, CVE-2018-12023, CVE-2018-14718, CVE-2018-14719,
>>>>>>> CVE-2018-14720, CVE-2018-14721, CVE-2018-19360, CVE-2018-19361,
>>>>>>> CVE-2018-19362, CVE-2018-5968, CVE-2018-7489, CVE-2019-12086,
>>>>>>> CVE-2019-12384, CVE-2019-12814, CVE-2019-14379, CVE-2019-14439,
>>>>>>> CVE-2019-14540, CVE-2019-16335, CVE-2019-16942, CVE-2019-16943,
>>>>>>> CVE-2019-17267, CVE-2019-17531
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> flink-shaded-guava-18.0-2.0.jar/META-INF/maven/com.google.guava/guava/pom.xml
>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/com.google.guava/guava@18.0,
>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:google:guava:18.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2018-10237
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> One or more dependencies were identified with known
>> vulnerabilities
>>>> in
>>>>>>> ignite-rocketmq:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> netty-all-4.0.42.Final.jar
>> (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty-all@4.0.42.Final
>>>> ,
>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:4.0.42:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2019-16869
>>>>>>> netty-tcnative-boringssl-static-1.1.33.Fork26.jar
>>>>>>> (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty-tcnative-boringssl-static@1.1.33.Fork26
>> ,
>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:1.1.33:*:*:*:*:*:*:*,
>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat_native:1.1.33:*:*:*:*:*:*:*,
>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache_software_foundation:tomcat:1.1.33:*:*:*:*:*:*:*,
>>>>>>> cpe:2.3:a:apache_tomcat:apache_tomcat:1.1.33:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
>>>>>>> CVE-2000-1210, CVE-2001-0590, CVE-2002-0493, CVE-2005-4838,
>>>>> CVE-2006-7196,
>>>>>>> CVE-2007-1358, CVE-2007-2449, CVE-2008-0128, CVE-2009-2696,
>>>>> CVE-2012-5568,
>>>>>>> CVE-2013-2185, CVE-2013-4286, CVE-2013-4322, CVE-2013-,
>>>>> CVE-2013-4590,
>>>>>>> CVE-2013-6357, CVE-2014-0075, CVE-2014-0096, CVE-2014-0099,
>>>>> CVE-2014-0119,
>>>>>>> CVE-2016-5425, CVE-2017-15698, CVE-2018-8019, CVE-2018-8020
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Main offenders seem to be "jackson-databind" and old maintenance
>>>>> releases
>>>>>>> of Spring. I think we can bump most of that.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Some integrations also clearly suffer, through it's a problem of
>>>> their
>>>>>>> users, since they need to declare their own libraries' versions
>> by
>>>>>>> convention.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> пт, 27 дек. 2019 г. в 23:59, Denis Magda :
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Ilya, no I see, thanks for the explanation. Agree with you,
>> let's
>>>>> update
>>>>>>>> the versions of the dependencies to the latest.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:50 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I have committed ignite-spring-data_2.2 to ignite-2.8.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> By bumping versisons I mean the following:
>>>>>>>>>1.7.*7*
>>>>>>>>>1.6.*4*
>>>>>>>>>1.1.7.*2*
>>>>>>>>>2.6.*5*
>>>>>>>>>2.3.*0*
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 1.13.*14*.RELEASE
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>4.3.*18*.RELEASE
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>> 2.0.*9*.RELEASE
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 5.0.*8*.RELEASE
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> All these libraries have maintenance release (such as our
>>>> 2.7.*6*)
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> think it would be beneficial to upgrade these dependencies
>> to the
>>>>>>> latest
>>>>>>>>> maintenance version found in Maven Central.
>>>>>>>>> For example, there is spring.data-2.0 2.0.*14*.RELEASE.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> чт, 26 дек. 2019 г. в 19:32, Denis Magda >> :
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> A huge +1 for adding Spring Data related
>> fixes/improvements.
>>>>> Ilya is
>>>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>>>>> that Spring Data related questions sparked last time due to
>>>>> missing
>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>> of 2.2 version.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Ilya, could you elaborate on what you mean under "bumping
>> the
>>>>>>>> versions"?
>>>>>>>>> Do
>>>>>>>>>> you suggest performing a straightforward upgrade of
>>>>>>>> "ignite-spring-data"
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> version 2.2 and introducing
>> "ignite-spring-data-{old-version"}
>>>>> for
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> previous versions? If it's so, I fully agree with the
>> proposal.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 4:52 AM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I propose to add the following ticket to the scope:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12259 (3
>>>>> commits, be
>>>>>>>>>> careful
>>>>>>>>>>> with release version)
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Adding tickets to scope surely seems crazy now, but I
>> will
>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> following considerations:
>>>>>>>>>>> * This is Spring Data 2.2 integration, which we
>> currently do
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> have,
>>>>>>>>>>> leading to lots of confused questions on stack overflow
>> and
>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>>>>> Spring Data is important to our public image since many
>>>> people
>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>> learn
>>>>>>>>>>> about out project by starting with Spring Data.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> * It has zero code impact outside of its own module
>> (just 2
>>>> POM
>>>>>>> file
>>>>>>>>>>> touched and that's all).
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> * The core was ready since early November but, due to
>> gmail
>>>>> quirk,
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>>>>> not react to it in time.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Another semi-related question. *Should we bump our
>>>>> dependencies'
>>>>>>>>> versions
>>>>>>>>>>> before releasing 2.8?* I talk mainly about spring and
>>>> hibernate
>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies. We could switch them to their latest
>>>> maintenance
>>>>>>>> versions
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> avoid shipping default links to outdated packages.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I think this is one of things that are very hard to do
>>>> between
>>>>>>>>> releases,
>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>> I think this dependencies bumping should be a part of a
>>>> formal
>>>>>>>>>>> release/testing cycle, and then be backported to master.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I could volunteer to do that myself, if we agree to merge
>>>> these
>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>> upgrades to ignite-2.8 and then re-test.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 24 дек. 2019 г. в 13:22, Zhenya Stanilovsky
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, i`l try to compare 2.8 release candidate vs
>>>> 2.7.6,
>>>>>>>>>>>> last sha 2.8 was build from :  9d114f3137f92aebc2562a
>>>>>>>>>>>> i use yardstick benchmarks, 4 bare machine with:  2x
>> Xeon
>>>>> X5570
>>>>>>>> 96Gb
>>>>>>>>>>> 512GB
>>>>>>>>>>>> SSD 2048GB HDD 10GB/s
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 for  client (driver) and 3 for servers.
>>>>>>>>>>>> this mappings for graphs and real yardstick tests:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> atomic-put: IgnitePutBenchmark
>>>>>>>>>>>> sql-merge-query: IgniteSqlMergeQueryBenchmark
>>>>>>>>>>>> atomic-get: IgniteGetBenchmark
>>>>>>>>>>>> tx-get: IgniteGetTxBenchmark
>>>>>>>>>>>> tx-put: IgnitePutTxBenchmark
>>>>>>>>>>>> atomic-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllBenchmark
>>>>>>>>>>>> tx-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllTxBenchmark
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> cacheMode — partitioned
>>>>>>>>>>>> CacheWriteSynchronizationMode.FULL_SYNC
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 backup
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. wal = log_only 2. wal = none 3. persistence
>> disabled.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Maxim for wiki page [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> do we need some bisect or other work here ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- Forwarded message ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Maxim Muzafarov" < mmu...@apache.org >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To:  dev@ignite.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope,
>> Manager]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:44:31 +0300
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's almost a year has passed since the last major
>> Apache
>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>> 2.7
>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been released. We've accumulated a lot of
>> performance
>>>>>>>>> improvements
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a lot of new features which are waiting for their
>>>>> release
>>>>>>>> date.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is my list of the most interesting things from my
>>>> point
>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> last major release:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Service Grid,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Monitoring,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recovery Read
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BLT auto-adjust,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PDS compression,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WAL page compression,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thin client: best effort affinity,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thin client: transactions support (not yet)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL query history
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL statistics
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should no longer wait and freeze the master
>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>> anymore
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and prepare the next major release by the end of the
>> year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I propose to discuss Time, Scope of Apache Ignite 2.8
>>>>> release
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to propose myself to be the release manager of
>> the
>>>>>>> planning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scope Freeze: November 4, 2019
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Code Freeze: November 18, 2019
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Voting Date: December 10, 2019
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Release Date: December 17, 2019
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> BR, Sergey Antonov

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Sergey Antonov]

a:netty:netty:4.0.27:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2015-2156,
> > > > CVE-2016-4970,
> > > > > > CVE-2019-16869
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> flink-shaded-jackson-2.7.9-3.0.jar/META-INF/maven/com.fasterxml.jackson.core/jackson-databind/pom.xml
> > > > > > (pkg:maven/com.fasterxml.jackson.core/jackson-databind@2.7.9,
> > > > > > cpe:2.3:a:fasterxml:jackson:2.7.9:*:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > > > > > cpe:2.3:a:fasterxml:jackson-databind:2.7.9:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > > CVE-2017-15095,
> > > > > > CVE-2017-17485, CVE-2017-7525, CVE-2018-1000873, CVE-2018-11307,
> > > > > > CVE-2018-12022, CVE-2018-12023, CVE-2018-14718, CVE-2018-14719,
> > > > > > CVE-2018-14720, CVE-2018-14721, CVE-2018-19360, CVE-2018-19361,
> > > > > > CVE-2018-19362, CVE-2018-5968, CVE-2018-7489, CVE-2019-12086,
> > > > > > CVE-2019-12384, CVE-2019-12814, CVE-2019-14379, CVE-2019-14439,
> > > > > > CVE-2019-14540, CVE-2019-16335, CVE-2019-16942, CVE-2019-16943,
> > > > > > CVE-2019-17267, CVE-2019-17531
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> flink-shaded-guava-18.0-2.0.jar/META-INF/maven/com.google.guava/guava/pom.xml
> > > > > > (pkg:maven/com.google.guava/guava@18.0,
> > > > > > cpe:2.3:a:google:guava:18.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2018-10237
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One or more dependencies were identified with known
> vulnerabilities
> > > in
> > > > > > ignite-rocketmq:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > netty-all-4.0.42.Final.jar
> (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty-all@4.0.42.Final
> > > ,
> > > > > > cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:4.0.42:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2019-16869
> > > > > > netty-tcnative-boringssl-static-1.1.33.Fork26.jar
> > > > > > (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty-tcnative-boringssl-static@1.1.33.Fork26
> ,
> > > > > > cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:1.1.33:*:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > > > > > cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat_native:1.1.33:*:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > > > > > cpe:2.3:a:apache_software_foundation:tomcat:1.1.33:*:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > > > > > cpe:2.3:a:apache_tomcat:apache_tomcat:1.1.33:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > > > > CVE-2000-1210, CVE-2001-0590, CVE-2002-0493, CVE-2005-4838,
> > > > CVE-2006-7196,
> > > > > > CVE-2007-1358, CVE-2007-2449, CVE-2008-0128, CVE-2009-2696,
> > > > CVE-2012-5568,
> > > > > > CVE-2013-2185, CVE-2013-4286, CVE-2013-4322, CVE-2013-,
> > > > CVE-2013-4590,
> > > > > > CVE-2013-6357, CVE-2014-0075, CVE-2014-0096, CVE-2014-0099,
> > > > CVE-2014-0119,
> > > > > > CVE-2016-5425, CVE-2017-15698, CVE-2018-8019, CVE-2018-8020
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Main offenders seem to be "jackson-databind" and old maintenance
> > > > releases
> > > > > > of Spring. I think we can bump most of that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some integrations also clearly suffer, through it's a problem of
> > > their
> > > > > > users, since they need to declare their own libraries' versions
> by
> > > > > > convention.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > пт, 27 дек. 2019 г. в 23:59, Denis Magda :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ilya, no I see, thanks for the explanation. Agree with you,
> let's
> > > > update
> > > > > > > the versions of the dependencies to the latest.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:50 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have committed ignite-spring-data_2.2

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Alexey Zinoviev]

018-12022, CVE-2018-12023, CVE-2018-14718, CVE-2018-14719,
> > > > > > CVE-2018-14720, CVE-2018-14721, CVE-2018-19360, CVE-2018-19361,
> > > > > > CVE-2018-19362, CVE-2018-5968, CVE-2018-7489, CVE-2019-12086,
> > > > > > CVE-2019-12384, CVE-2019-12814, CVE-2019-14379, CVE-2019-14439,
> > > > > > CVE-2019-14540, CVE-2019-16335, CVE-2019-16942, CVE-2019-16943,
> > > > > > CVE-2019-17267, CVE-2019-17531
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> flink-shaded-guava-18.0-2.0.jar/META-INF/maven/com.google.guava/guava/pom.xml
> > > > > > (pkg:maven/com.google.guava/guava@18.0,
> > > > > > cpe:2.3:a:google:guava:18.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2018-10237
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One or more dependencies were identified with known
> vulnerabilities
> > > in
> > > > > > ignite-rocketmq:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > netty-all-4.0.42.Final.jar
> (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty-all@4.0.42.Final
> > > ,
> > > > > > cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:4.0.42:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2019-16869
> > > > > > netty-tcnative-boringssl-static-1.1.33.Fork26.jar
> > > > > > (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty-tcnative-boringssl-static@1.1.33.Fork26
> ,
> > > > > > cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:1.1.33:*:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > > > > > cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat_native:1.1.33:*:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > > > > > cpe:2.3:a:apache_software_foundation:tomcat:1.1.33:*:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > > > > > cpe:2.3:a:apache_tomcat:apache_tomcat:1.1.33:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > > > > CVE-2000-1210, CVE-2001-0590, CVE-2002-0493, CVE-2005-4838,
> > > > CVE-2006-7196,
> > > > > > CVE-2007-1358, CVE-2007-2449, CVE-2008-0128, CVE-2009-2696,
> > > > CVE-2012-5568,
> > > > > > CVE-2013-2185, CVE-2013-4286, CVE-2013-4322, CVE-2013-,
> > > > CVE-2013-4590,
> > > > > > CVE-2013-6357, CVE-2014-0075, CVE-2014-0096, CVE-2014-0099,
> > > > CVE-2014-0119,
> > > > > > CVE-2016-5425, CVE-2017-15698, CVE-2018-8019, CVE-2018-8020
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Main offenders seem to be "jackson-databind" and old maintenance
> > > > releases
> > > > > > of Spring. I think we can bump most of that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some integrations also clearly suffer, through it's a problem of
> > > their
> > > > > > users, since they need to declare their own libraries' versions
> by
> > > > > > convention.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > пт, 27 дек. 2019 г. в 23:59, Denis Magda :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ilya, no I see, thanks for the explanation. Agree with you,
> let's
> > > > update
> > > > > > > the versions of the dependencies to the latest.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:50 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have committed ignite-spring-data_2.2 to ignite-2.8.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By bumping versisons I mean the following:
> > > > > > > > 1.7.*7*
> > > > > > > > 1.6.*4*
> > > > > > > > 1.1.7.*2*
> > > > > > > > 2.6.*5*
> > > > > > > > 2.3.*0*
> > > > > > > >
> > > >  1.13.*14*.RELEASE
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 4.3.*18*.RELEASE
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> 2.0.*9*.RELEASE
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >
> > > >  5.0.*8*.RELEASE
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All these libraries have maintenance release (such as our
> > > 2.7.*6*)
> > > > and
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > think it would be beneficial to upgrade these dependencies
> to the
> > > > > > latest
> > > > > > > > maintenance version found in Maven Central.
> > > > > > > > For example, there is spring.data-2.0 2.0.*14*.RELEASE.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > чт, 26 дек. 2019 г. в 19:32, Denis Magda  >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A huge +1 for adding Spring Data related
> fixes/improvements.
> > > > Ilya is
> > > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > > that Spring Data related questions sparked last time due to
> > > > missing
> > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > of 2.2 version.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ilya, could you elaborate on what you mean under "bumping
> the
> > > > > > > versions"?
> > > > > > > > Do
> > > > > > > > > you suggest performing a straightforward upgrade of
> > > > > > > "ignite-spring-data"
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > version 2.2 and introducing
> "ignite-spring-data-{old-version"}
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > previous versions? If it's so, I fully agree with the
> proposal.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 4:52 AM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > > > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hello!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I propose to add the following ticket to the scope:
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12259 (3
> > > > commits, be
> > > > > > > > > careful
> > > > > > > > > > with release version)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Adding tickets to scope surely seems crazy now, but I
> will
> > > > provide
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > following considerations:
> > > > > > > > > > * This is Spring Data 2.2 integration, which we
> currently do
> > > > not
> > > > > > > have,
> > > > > > > > > > leading to lots of confused questions on stack overflow
> and
> > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > > > > > Spring Data is important to our public image since many
> > > people
> > > > may
> > > > > > > > learn
> > > > > > > > > > about out project by starting with Spring Data.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > * It has zero code impact outside of its own module
> (just 2
> > > POM
> > > > > > file
> > > > > > > > > > touched and that's all).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > * The core was ready since early November but, due to
> gmail
> > > > quirk,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > did
> > > > > > > > > > not react to it in time.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Another semi-related question. *Should we bump our
> > > > dependencies'
> > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > before releasing 2.8?* I talk mainly about spring and
> > > hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > dependencies. We could switch them to their latest
> > > maintenance
> > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > avoid shipping default links to outdated packages.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think this is one of things that are very hard to do
> > > between
> > > > > > > > releases,
> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > I think this dependencies bumping should be a part of a
> > > formal
> > > > > > > > > > release/testing cycle, and then be backported to master.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I could volunteer to do that myself, if we agree to merge
> > > these
> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > upgrades to ignite-2.8 and then re-test.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > вт, 24 дек. 2019 г. в 13:22, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, i`l try to compare 2.8 release candidate vs
> > > 2.7.6,
> > > > > > > > > > > last sha 2.8 was build from :  9d114f3137f92aebc2562a
> > > > > > > > > > > i use yardstick benchmarks, 4 bare machine with:  2x
> Xeon
> > > > X5570
> > > > > > > 96Gb
> > > > > > > > > > 512GB
> > > > > > > > > > > SSD 2048GB HDD 10GB/s
> > > > > > > > > > > 1 for  client (driver) and 3 for servers.
> > > > > > > > > > > this mappings for graphs and real yardstick tests:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > atomic-put: IgnitePutBenchmark
> > > > > > > > > > > sql-merge-query: IgniteSqlMergeQueryBenchmark
> > > > > > > > > > > atomic-get: IgniteGetBenchmark
> > > > > > > > > > > tx-get: IgniteGetTxBenchmark
> > > > > > > > > > > tx-put: IgnitePutTxBenchmark
> > > > > > > > > > > atomic-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllBenchmark
> > > > > > > > > > > tx-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllTxBenchmark
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > cacheMode — partitioned
> > > > > > > > > > > CacheWriteSynchronizationMode.FULL_SYNC
> > > > > > > > > > > 1 backup
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. wal = log_only 2. wal = none 3. persistence
> disabled.
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Maxim for wiki page [1]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > do we need some bisect or other work here ?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >--- Forwarded message ---
> > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Maxim Muzafarov" < mmu...@apache.org >
> > > > > > > > > > > >To:  dev@ignite.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >Cc:
> > > > > > > > > > > >Subject: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope,
> Manager]
> > > > > > > > > > > >Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:44:31 +0300
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >It's almost a year has passed since the last major
> Apache
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > 2.7
> > > > > > > > > > > >has been released. We've accumulated a lot of
> performance
> > > > > > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > >and a lot of new features which are waiting for their
> > > > release
> > > > > > > date.
> > > > > > > > > > > >Here is my list of the most interesting things from my
> > > point
> > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >last major release:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >Service Grid,
> > > > > > > > > > > >Monitoring,
> > > > > > > > > > > >Recovery Read
> > > > > > > > > > > >BLT auto-adjust,
> > > > > > > > > > > >PDS compression,
> > > > > > > > > > > >WAL page compression,
> > > > > > > > > > > >Thin client: best effort affinity,
> > > > > > > > > > > >Thin client: transactions support (not yet)
> > > > > > > > > > > >SQL query history
> > > > > > > > > > > >SQL statistics
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >I think we should no longer wait and freeze the master
> > > > branch
> > > > > > > > anymore
> > > > > > > > > > > >and prepare the next major release by the end of the
> year.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >I propose to discuss Time, Scope of Apache Ignite 2.8
> > > > release
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > >I want to propose myself to be the release manager of
> the
> > > > > > planning
> > > > > > > > > > > >release.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >Scope Freeze: November 4, 2019
> > > > > > > > > > > >Code Freeze: November 18, 2019
> > > > > > > > > > > >Voting Date: December 10, 2019
> > > > > > > > > > > >Release Date: December 17, 2019
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >
> > >
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Maxim Muzafarov]

gt; >
> > > > > > Ilya, no I see, thanks for the explanation. Agree with you, let's
> > > update
> > > > > > the versions of the dependencies to the latest.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:50 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have committed ignite-spring-data_2.2 to ignite-2.8.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By bumping versisons I mean the following:
> > > > > > > 1.7.*7*
> > > > > > > 1.6.*4*
> > > > > > > 1.1.7.*2*
> > > > > > > 2.6.*5*
> > > > > > > 2.3.*0*
> > > > > > >
> > >  1.13.*14*.RELEASE
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > 4.3.*18*.RELEASE
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >  2.0.*9*.RELEASE
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >
> > >  5.0.*8*.RELEASE
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All these libraries have maintenance release (such as our
> > 2.7.*6*)
> > > and
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > think it would be beneficial to upgrade these dependencies to the
> > > > > latest
> > > > > > > maintenance version found in Maven Central.
> > > > > > > For example, there is spring.data-2.0 2.0.*14*.RELEASE.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > чт, 26 дек. 2019 г. в 19:32, Denis Magda :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A huge +1 for adding Spring Data related fixes/improvements.
> > > Ilya is
> > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > that Spring Data related questions sparked last time due to
> > > missing
> > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > of 2.2 version.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ilya, could you elaborate on what you mean under "bumping the
> > > > > > versions"?
> > > > > > > Do
> > > > > > > > you suggest performing a straightforward upgrade of
> > > > > > "ignite-spring-data"
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > version 2.2 and introducing "ignite-spring-data-{old-version"}
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > previous versions? If it's so, I fully agree with the proposal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 4:52 AM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hello!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I propose to add the following ticket to the scope:
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12259 (3
> > > commits, be
> > > > > > > > careful
> > > > > > > > > with release version)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Adding tickets to scope surely seems crazy now, but I will
> > > provide
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > following considerations:
> > > > > > > > > * This is Spring Data 2.2 integration, which we currently do
> > > not
> > > > > > have,
> > > > > > > > > leading to lots of confused questions on stack overflow and
> > > mailing
> > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > > > > Spring Data is important to our public image since many
> > people
> > > may
> > > > > > > learn
> > > > > > > > > about out project by starting with Spring Data.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > * It has zero code impact outside of its own module (just 2
> > POM
> > > > > file
> > > > > > > > > touched and that's all).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > * The core was ready since early November but, due to gmail
> > > quirk,
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > did
> > > > > > > > > not react to it in time.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Another semi-related question. *Should we bump our
> > > dependencies'
> > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > before releasing 2.8?* I talk mainly about spring and
> > hibernate
> > > > > > > > > dependencies. We could switch them to their latest
> > maintenance
> > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > avoid shipping default links to outdated packages.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think this is one of things that are very hard to do
> > between
> > > > > > > releases,
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > I think this dependencies bumping should be a part of a
> > formal
> > > > > > > > > release/testing cycle, and then be backported to master.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I could volunteer to do that myself, if we agree to merge
> > these
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > upgrades to ignite-2.8 and then re-test.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > вт, 24 дек. 2019 г. в 13:22, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Igniters, i`l try to compare 2.8 release candidate vs
> > 2.7.6,
> > > > > > > > > > last sha 2.8 was build from :  9d114f3137f92aebc2562a
> > > > > > > > > > i use yardstick benchmarks, 4 bare machine with:  2x Xeon
> > > X5570
> > > > > > 96Gb
> > > > > > > > > 512GB
> > > > > > > > > > SSD 2048GB HDD 10GB/s
> > > > > > > > > > 1 for  client (driver) and 3 for servers.
> > > > > > > > > > this mappings for graphs and real yardstick tests:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > atomic-put: IgnitePutBenchmark
> > > > > > > > > > sql-merge-query: IgniteSqlMergeQueryBenchmark
> > > > > > > > > > atomic-get: IgniteGetBenchmark
> > > > > > > > > > tx-get: IgniteGetTxBenchmark
> > > > > > > > > > tx-put: IgnitePutTxBenchmark
> > > > > > > > > > atomic-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllBenchmark
> > > > > > > > > > tx-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllTxBenchmark
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > cacheMode — partitioned
> > > > > > > > > > CacheWriteSynchronizationMode.FULL_SYNC
> > > > > > > > > > 1 backup
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1. wal = log_only 2. wal = none 3. persistence disabled.
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks Maxim for wiki page [1]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > do we need some bisect or other work here ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >--- Forwarded message ---
> > > > > > > > > > >From: "Maxim Muzafarov" < mmu...@apache.org >
> > > > > > > > > > >To:  dev@ignite.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >Cc:
> > > > > > > > > > >Subject: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]
> > > > > > > > > > >Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:44:31 +0300
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >It's almost a year has passed since the last major Apache
> > > Ignite
> > > > > > 2.7
> > > > > > > > > > >has been released. We've accumulated a lot of performance
> > > > > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > > > >and a lot of new features which are waiting for their
> > > release
> > > > > > date.
> > > > > > > > > > >Here is my list of the most interesting things from my
> > point
> > > > > since
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >last major release:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >Service Grid,
> > > > > > > > > > >Monitoring,
> > > > > > > > > > >Recovery Read
> > > > > > > > > > >BLT auto-adjust,
> > > > > > > > > > >PDS compression,
> > > > > > > > > > >WAL page compression,
> > > > > > > > > > >Thin client: best effort affinity,
> > > > > > > > > > >Thin client: transactions support (not yet)
> > > > > > > > > > >SQL query history
> > > > > > > > > > >SQL statistics
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >I think we should no longer wait and freeze the master
> > > branch
> > > > > > > anymore
> > > > > > > > > > >and prepare the next major release by the end of the year.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >I propose to discuss Time, Scope of Apache Ignite 2.8
> > > release
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > >I want to propose myself to be the release manager of the
> > > > > planning
> > > > > > > > > > >release.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >Scope Freeze: November 4, 2019
> > > > > > > > > > >Code Freeze: November 18, 2019
> > > > > > > > > > >Voting Date: December 10, 2019
> > > > > > > > > > >Release Date: December 17, 2019
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >
> >

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Alexey Zinoviev]

_tomcat:1.1.33:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > > > CVE-2000-1210, CVE-2001-0590, CVE-2002-0493, CVE-2005-4838,
> > CVE-2006-7196,
> > > > CVE-2007-1358, CVE-2007-2449, CVE-2008-0128, CVE-2009-2696,
> > CVE-2012-5568,
> > > > CVE-2013-2185, CVE-2013-4286, CVE-2013-4322, CVE-2013-,
> > CVE-2013-4590,
> > > > CVE-2013-6357, CVE-2014-0075, CVE-2014-0096, CVE-2014-0099,
> > CVE-2014-0119,
> > > > CVE-2016-5425, CVE-2017-15698, CVE-2018-8019, CVE-2018-8020
> > > >
> > > > Main offenders seem to be "jackson-databind" and old maintenance
> > releases
> > > > of Spring. I think we can bump most of that.
> > > >
> > > > Some integrations also clearly suffer, through it's a problem of
> their
> > > > users, since they need to declare their own libraries' versions by
> > > > convention.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > --
> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > пт, 27 дек. 2019 г. в 23:59, Denis Magda :
> > > >
> > > > > Ilya, no I see, thanks for the explanation. Agree with you, let's
> > update
> > > > > the versions of the dependencies to the latest.
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:50 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have committed ignite-spring-data_2.2 to ignite-2.8.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By bumping versisons I mean the following:
> > > > > > 1.7.*7*
> > > > > > 1.6.*4*
> > > > > > 1.1.7.*2*
> > > > > > 2.6.*5*
> > > > > > 2.3.*0*
> > > > > >
> >  1.13.*14*.RELEASE
> > > > 
> > > > > > 4.3.*18*.RELEASE
> > > > > >
> > > > >  2.0.*9*.RELEASE
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >
> >  5.0.*8*.RELEASE
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All these libraries have maintenance release (such as our
> 2.7.*6*)
> > and
> > > > I
> > > > > > think it would be beneficial to upgrade these dependencies to the
> > > > latest
> > > > > > maintenance version found in Maven Central.
> > > > > > For example, there is spring.data-2.0 2.0.*14*.RELEASE.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 26 дек. 2019 г. в 19:32, Denis Magda :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > A huge +1 for adding Spring Data related fixes/improvements.
> > Ilya is
> > > > > > right
> > > > > > > that Spring Data related questions sparked last time due to
> > missing
> > > > > > support
> > > > > > > of 2.2 version.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ilya, could you elaborate on what you mean under "bumping the
> > > > > versions"?
> > > > > > Do
> > > > > > > you suggest performing a straightforward upgrade of
> > > > > "ignite-spring-data"
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > version 2.2 and introducing "ignite-spring-data-{old-version"}
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > > previous versions? If it's so, I fully agree with the proposal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 4:52 AM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I propose to add the following ticket to the scope:
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12259 (3
> > commits, be
> > > > > > > careful
> > > > > > > > with release version)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Adding tickets to scope surely seems crazy now, but I will
> > provide
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > following considerations:
> > > > > > > > * This is Spring Data 2.2 integration, which we currently do
> > not
> > > > > have,
> > > > > > > > leading to lots of confused questions on stack overflow and
> > mailing
> > > > > > list.
> > > > > > > > Spring Data is important to our public image since many
> people
> > may
> > > > > > learn
> > > > > > > > about out project by starting with Spring Data.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * It has zero code impact outside of its own module (just 2
> POM
> > > > file
> > > > > > > > touched and that's all).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * The core was ready since early November but, due to gmail
> > quirk,
> > > > we
> > > > > > did
> > > > > > > > not react to it in time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Another semi-related question. *Should we bump our
> > dependencies'
> > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > before releasing 2.8?* I talk mainly about spring and
> hibernate
> > > > > > > > dependencies. We could switch them to their latest
> maintenance
> > > > > versions
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > avoid shipping default links to outdated packages.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think this is one of things that are very hard to do
> between
> > > > > > releases,
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > I think this dependencies bumping should be a part of a
> formal
> > > > > > > > release/testing cycle, and then be backported to master.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I could volunteer to do that myself, if we agree to merge
> these
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > > upgrades to ignite-2.8 and then re-test.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > вт, 24 дек. 2019 г. в 13:22, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> > > > > > >  > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Igniters, i`l try to compare 2.8 release candidate vs
> 2.7.6,
> > > > > > > > > last sha 2.8 was build from :  9d114f3137f92aebc2562a
> > > > > > > > > i use yardstick benchmarks, 4 bare machine with:  2x Xeon
> > X5570
> > > > > 96Gb
> > > > > > > > 512GB
> > > > > > > > > SSD 2048GB HDD 10GB/s
> > > > > > > > > 1 for  client (driver) and 3 for servers.
> > > > > > > > > this mappings for graphs and real yardstick tests:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > atomic-put: IgnitePutBenchmark
> > > > > > > > > sql-merge-query: IgniteSqlMergeQueryBenchmark
> > > > > > > > > atomic-get: IgniteGetBenchmark
> > > > > > > > > tx-get: IgniteGetTxBenchmark
> > > > > > > > > tx-put: IgnitePutTxBenchmark
> > > > > > > > > atomic-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllBenchmark
> > > > > > > > > tx-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllTxBenchmark
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > cacheMode — partitioned
> > > > > > > > > CacheWriteSynchronizationMode.FULL_SYNC
> > > > > > > > > 1 backup
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. wal = log_only 2. wal = none 3. persistence disabled.
> > > > > > > > > Thanks Maxim for wiki page [1]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > do we need some bisect or other work here ?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >--- Forwarded message ---
> > > > > > > > > >From: "Maxim Muzafarov" < mmu...@apache.org >
> > > > > > > > > >To:  dev@ignite.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >Cc:
> > > > > > > > > >Subject: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]
> > > > > > > > > >Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:44:31 +0300
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >It's almost a year has passed since the last major Apache
> > Ignite
> > > > > 2.7
> > > > > > > > > >has been released. We've accumulated a lot of performance
> > > > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > > >and a lot of new features which are waiting for their
> > release
> > > > > date.
> > > > > > > > > >Here is my list of the most interesting things from my
> point
> > > > since
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >last major release:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Service Grid,
> > > > > > > > > >Monitoring,
> > > > > > > > > >Recovery Read
> > > > > > > > > >BLT auto-adjust,
> > > > > > > > > >PDS compression,
> > > > > > > > > >WAL page compression,
> > > > > > > > > >Thin client: best effort affinity,
> > > > > > > > > >Thin client: transactions support (not yet)
> > > > > > > > > >SQL query history
> > > > > > > > > >SQL statistics
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >I think we should no longer wait and freeze the master
> > branch
> > > > > > anymore
> > > > > > > > > >and prepare the next major release by the end of the year.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >I propose to discuss Time, Scope of Apache Ignite 2.8
> > release
> > > > and
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > >I want to propose myself to be the release manager of the
> > > > planning
> > > > > > > > > >release.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Scope Freeze: November 4, 2019
> > > > > > > > > >Code Freeze: November 18, 2019
> > > > > > > > > >Voting Date: December 10, 2019
> > > > > > > > > >Release Date: December 17, 2019
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >WDYT?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Sergey Antonov]

gt; > > > think it would be beneficial to upgrade these dependencies to the
> > > latest
> > > > > maintenance version found in Maven Central.
> > > > > For example, there is spring.data-2.0 2.0.*14*.RELEASE.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 26 дек. 2019 г. в 19:32, Denis Magda :
> > > > >
> > > > > > A huge +1 for adding Spring Data related fixes/improvements.
> Ilya is
> > > > > right
> > > > > > that Spring Data related questions sparked last time due to
> missing
> > > > > support
> > > > > > of 2.2 version.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ilya, could you elaborate on what you mean under "bumping the
> > > > versions"?
> > > > > Do
> > > > > > you suggest performing a straightforward upgrade of
> > > > "ignite-spring-data"
> > > > > to
> > > > > > version 2.2 and introducing "ignite-spring-data-{old-version"}
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > previous versions? If it's so, I fully agree with the proposal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 4:52 AM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I propose to add the following ticket to the scope:
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12259 (3
> commits, be
> > > > > > careful
> > > > > > > with release version)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Adding tickets to scope surely seems crazy now, but I will
> provide
> > > > the
> > > > > > > following considerations:
> > > > > > > * This is Spring Data 2.2 integration, which we currently do
> not
> > > > have,
> > > > > > > leading to lots of confused questions on stack overflow and
> mailing
> > > > > list.
> > > > > > > Spring Data is important to our public image since many people
> may
> > > > > learn
> > > > > > > about out project by starting with Spring Data.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * It has zero code impact outside of its own module (just 2 POM
> > > file
> > > > > > > touched and that's all).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * The core was ready since early November but, due to gmail
> quirk,
> > > we
> > > > > did
> > > > > > > not react to it in time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Another semi-related question. *Should we bump our
> dependencies'
> > > > > versions
> > > > > > > before releasing 2.8?* I talk mainly about spring and hibernate
> > > > > > > dependencies. We could switch them to their latest maintenance
> > > > versions
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > avoid shipping default links to outdated packages.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think this is one of things that are very hard to do between
> > > > > releases,
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > I think this dependencies bumping should be a part of a formal
> > > > > > > release/testing cycle, and then be backported to master.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I could volunteer to do that myself, if we agree to merge these
> > > > version
> > > > > > > upgrades to ignite-2.8 and then re-test.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 24 дек. 2019 г. в 13:22, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> > > > > >  > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Igniters, i`l try to compare 2.8 release candidate vs 2.7.6,
> > > > > > > > last sha 2.8 was build from :  9d114f3137f92aebc2562a
> > > > > > > > i use yardstick benchmarks, 4 bare machine with:  2x Xeon
> X5570
> > > > 96Gb
> > > > > > > 512GB
> > > > > > > > SSD 2048GB HDD 10GB/s
> > > > > > > > 1 for  client (driver) and 3 for servers.
> > > > > > > > this mappings for graphs and real yardstick tests:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > atomic-put: IgnitePutBenchmark
> > > > > > > > sql-merge-query: IgniteSqlMergeQueryBenchmark
> > > > > > > > atomic-get: IgniteGetBenchmark
> > > > > > > > tx-get: IgniteGetTxBenchmark
> > > > > > > > tx-put: IgnitePutTxBenchmark
> > > > > > > > atomic-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllBenchmark
> > > > > > > > tx-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllTxBenchmark
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > cacheMode — partitioned
> > > > > > > > CacheWriteSynchronizationMode.FULL_SYNC
> > > > > > > > 1 backup
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. wal = log_only 2. wal = none 3. persistence disabled.
> > > > > > > > Thanks Maxim for wiki page [1]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > do we need some bisect or other work here ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >--- Forwarded message ---
> > > > > > > > >From: "Maxim Muzafarov" < mmu...@apache.org >
> > > > > > > > >To:  dev@ignite.apache.org
> > > > > > > > >Cc:
> > > > > > > > >Subject: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]
> > > > > > > > >Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:44:31 +0300
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >It's almost a year has passed since the last major Apache
> Ignite
> > > > 2.7
> > > > > > > > >has been released. We've accumulated a lot of performance
> > > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > >and a lot of new features which are waiting for their
> release
> > > > date.
> > > > > > > > >Here is my list of the most interesting things from my point
> > > since
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >last major release:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Service Grid,
> > > > > > > > >Monitoring,
> > > > > > > > >Recovery Read
> > > > > > > > >BLT auto-adjust,
> > > > > > > > >PDS compression,
> > > > > > > > >WAL page compression,
> > > > > > > > >Thin client: best effort affinity,
> > > > > > > > >Thin client: transactions support (not yet)
> > > > > > > > >SQL query history
> > > > > > > > >SQL statistics
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >I think we should no longer wait and freeze the master
> branch
> > > > > anymore
> > > > > > > > >and prepare the next major release by the end of the year.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >I propose to discuss Time, Scope of Apache Ignite 2.8
> release
> > > and
> > > > > also
> > > > > > > > >I want to propose myself to be the release manager of the
> > > planning
> > > > > > > > >release.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Scope Freeze: November 4, 2019
> > > > > > > > >Code Freeze: November 18, 2019
> > > > > > > > >Voting Date: December 10, 2019
> > > > > > > > >Release Date: December 17, 2019
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >WDYT?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Ivan Pavlukhin]

/io.netty/netty-all@4.0.42.Final,
> > cpe:2.3:a:netty:netty:4.0.42:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) : CVE-2019-16869
> > netty-tcnative-boringssl-static-1.1.33.Fork26.jar
> > (pkg:maven/io.netty/netty-tcnative-boringssl-static@1.1.33.Fork26,
> > cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat:1.1.33:*:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > cpe:2.3:a:apache:tomcat_native:1.1.33:*:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > cpe:2.3:a:apache_software_foundation:tomcat:1.1.33:*:*:*:*:*:*:*,
> > cpe:2.3:a:apache_tomcat:apache_tomcat:1.1.33:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) :
> > CVE-2000-1210, CVE-2001-0590, CVE-2002-0493, CVE-2005-4838, CVE-2006-7196,
> > CVE-2007-1358, CVE-2007-2449, CVE-2008-0128, CVE-2009-2696, CVE-2012-5568,
> > CVE-2013-2185, CVE-2013-4286, CVE-2013-4322, CVE-2013-, CVE-2013-4590,
> > CVE-2013-6357, CVE-2014-0075, CVE-2014-0096, CVE-2014-0099, CVE-2014-0119,
> > CVE-2016-5425, CVE-2017-15698, CVE-2018-8019, CVE-2018-8020
> >
> > Main offenders seem to be "jackson-databind" and old maintenance releases
> > of Spring. I think we can bump most of that.
> >
> > Some integrations also clearly suffer, through it's a problem of their
> > users, since they need to declare their own libraries' versions by
> > convention.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> >
> > пт, 27 дек. 2019 г. в 23:59, Denis Magda :
> >
> > > Ilya, no I see, thanks for the explanation. Agree with you, let's update
> > > the versions of the dependencies to the latest.
> > >
> > > -
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:50 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello!
> > > >
> > > > I have committed ignite-spring-data_2.2 to ignite-2.8.
> > > >
> > > > By bumping versisons I mean the following:
> > > > 1.7.*7*
> > > > 1.6.*4*
> > > > 1.1.7.*2*
> > > > 2.6.*5*
> > > > 2.3.*0*
> > > > 1.13.*14*.RELEASE
> > 
> > > > 4.3.*18*.RELEASE
> > > >
> > >  2.0.*9*.RELEASE
> > > > 
> > > > 5.0.*8*.RELEASE
> > > >
> > > > All these libraries have maintenance release (such as our 2.7.*6*) and
> > I
> > > > think it would be beneficial to upgrade these dependencies to the
> > latest
> > > > maintenance version found in Maven Central.
> > > > For example, there is spring.data-2.0 2.0.*14*.RELEASE.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > --
> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > чт, 26 дек. 2019 г. в 19:32, Denis Magda :
> > > >
> > > > > A huge +1 for adding Spring Data related fixes/improvements. Ilya is
> > > > right
> > > > > that Spring Data related questions sparked last time due to missing
> > > > support
> > > > > of 2.2 version.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ilya, could you elaborate on what you mean under "bumping the
> > > versions"?
> > > > Do
> > > > > you suggest performing a straightforward upgrade of
> > > "ignite-spring-data"
> > > > to
> > > > > version 2.2 and introducing "ignite-spring-data-{old-version"} for
> > the
> > > > > previous versions? If it's so, I fully agree with the proposal.
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 4:52 AM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I propose to add the following ticket to the scope:
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12259 (3 commits, be
> > > > > careful
> > > > > > with release version)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Adding tickets to scope surely seems crazy now, but I will provide
> > > the
> > > > > > following considerations:
> > > > > > * This is Spring Data 2.2 integration, which we currently do not
> > > have,
> > > > > > leading to lots of confused questions on stack overflow and mailing
> > > > list.
> > > > > > Spring Data is important to our public image s

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Ivan Rakov]

; > 1.7.*7*
> > > 1.6.*4*
> > > 1.1.7.*2*
> > > 2.6.*5*
> > > 2.3.*0*
> > > 1.13.*14*.RELEASE
> 
> > > 4.3.*18*.RELEASE
> > >
> >  2.0.*9*.RELEASE
> > > 
> > > 5.0.*8*.RELEASE
> > >
> > > All these libraries have maintenance release (such as our 2.7.*6*) and
> I
> > > think it would be beneficial to upgrade these dependencies to the
> latest
> > > maintenance version found in Maven Central.
> > > For example, there is spring.data-2.0 2.0.*14*.RELEASE.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --
> > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > >
> > >
> > > чт, 26 дек. 2019 г. в 19:32, Denis Magda :
> > >
> > > > A huge +1 for adding Spring Data related fixes/improvements. Ilya is
> > > right
> > > > that Spring Data related questions sparked last time due to missing
> > > support
> > > > of 2.2 version.
> > > >
> > > > Ilya, could you elaborate on what you mean under "bumping the
> > versions"?
> > > Do
> > > > you suggest performing a straightforward upgrade of
> > "ignite-spring-data"
> > > to
> > > > version 2.2 and introducing "ignite-spring-data-{old-version"} for
> the
> > > > previous versions? If it's so, I fully agree with the proposal.
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 4:52 AM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello!
> > > > >
> > > > > I propose to add the following ticket to the scope:
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12259 (3 commits, be
> > > > careful
> > > > > with release version)
> > > > >
> > > > > Adding tickets to scope surely seems crazy now, but I will provide
> > the
> > > > > following considerations:
> > > > > * This is Spring Data 2.2 integration, which we currently do not
> > have,
> > > > > leading to lots of confused questions on stack overflow and mailing
> > > list.
> > > > > Spring Data is important to our public image since many people may
> > > learn
> > > > > about out project by starting with Spring Data.
> > > > >
> > > > > * It has zero code impact outside of its own module (just 2 POM
> file
> > > > > touched and that's all).
> > > > >
> > > > > * The core was ready since early November but, due to gmail quirk,
> we
> > > did
> > > > > not react to it in time.
> > > > >
> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >
> > > > > Another semi-related question. *Should we bump our dependencies'
> > > versions
> > > > > before releasing 2.8?* I talk mainly about spring and hibernate
> > > > > dependencies. We could switch them to their latest maintenance
> > versions
> > > > to
> > > > > avoid shipping default links to outdated packages.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this is one of things that are very hard to do between
> > > releases,
> > > > so
> > > > > I think this dependencies bumping should be a part of a formal
> > > > > release/testing cycle, and then be backported to master.
> > > > >
> > > > > I could volunteer to do that myself, if we agree to merge these
> > version
> > > > > upgrades to ignite-2.8 and then re-test.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 24 дек. 2019 г. в 13:22, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> > > >  > > > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Igniters, i`l try to compare 2.8 release candidate vs 2.7.6,
> > > > > > last sha 2.8 was build from :  9d114f3137f92aebc2562a
> > > > > > i use yardstick benchmarks, 4 bare machine with:  2x Xeon X5570
> > 96Gb
> > > > > 512GB
> > > > > > SSD 2048GB HDD 10GB/s
> > > > > > 1 for  client (driver) and 3 for servers.
> > > > > > this mappings for graphs and real yardstick tests:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > atomic-put: IgnitePutBenchmark
> > > > > > sql-merge-query: IgniteSqlMergeQueryBenchmark
> > > > > > atomic-get: IgniteGetBenchmark
> > > > > > tx-get: IgniteGetTxBenchmark
> > > > > > tx-put: IgnitePutTxBenchmark
> > > > > > atomic-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllBenchmark
> > > > > > tx-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllTxBenchmark
> > > > > >
> > > > > > cacheMode — partitioned
> > > > > > CacheWriteSynchronizationMode.FULL_SYNC
> > > > > > 1 backup
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. wal = log_only 2. wal = none 3. persistence disabled.
> > > > > > Thanks Maxim for wiki page [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
> > > > > >
> > > > > > do we need some bisect or other work here ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >--- Forwarded message ---
> > > > > > >From: "Maxim Muzafarov" < mmu...@apache.org >
> > > > > > >To:  dev@ignite.apache.org
> > > > > > >Cc:
> > > > > > >Subject: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]
> > > > > > >Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:44:31 +0300
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Igniters,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >It's almost a year has passed since the last major Apache Ignite
> > 2.7
> > > > > > >has been released. We've accumulated a lot of performance
> > > improvements
> > > > > > >and a lot of new features which are waiting for their release
> > date.
> > > > > > >Here is my list of the most interesting things from my point
> since
> > > the
> > > > > > >last major release:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Service Grid,
> > > > > > >Monitoring,
> > > > > > >Recovery Read
> > > > > > >BLT auto-adjust,
> > > > > > >PDS compression,
> > > > > > >WAL page compression,
> > > > > > >Thin client: best effort affinity,
> > > > > > >Thin client: transactions support (not yet)
> > > > > > >SQL query history
> > > > > > >SQL statistics
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I think we should no longer wait and freeze the master branch
> > > anymore
> > > > > > >and prepare the next major release by the end of the year.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I propose to discuss Time, Scope of Apache Ignite 2.8 release
> and
> > > also
> > > > > > >I want to propose myself to be the release manager of the
> planning
> > > > > > >release.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Scope Freeze: November 4, 2019
> > > > > > >Code Freeze: November 18, 2019
> > > > > > >Voting Date: December 10, 2019
> > > > > > >Release Date: December 17, 2019
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >WDYT?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Ilya Kasnacheev]

; > > touched and that's all).
> > > >
> > > > * The core was ready since early November but, due to gmail quirk, we
> > did
> > > > not react to it in time.
> > > >
> > > > WDYT?
> > > >
> > > > Another semi-related question. *Should we bump our dependencies'
> > versions
> > > > before releasing 2.8?* I talk mainly about spring and hibernate
> > > > dependencies. We could switch them to their latest maintenance
> versions
> > > to
> > > > avoid shipping default links to outdated packages.
> > > >
> > > > I think this is one of things that are very hard to do between
> > releases,
> > > so
> > > > I think this dependencies bumping should be a part of a formal
> > > > release/testing cycle, and then be backported to master.
> > > >
> > > > I could volunteer to do that myself, if we agree to merge these
> version
> > > > upgrades to ignite-2.8 and then re-test.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > --
> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > вт, 24 дек. 2019 г. в 13:22, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> > >  > > > >:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Igniters, i`l try to compare 2.8 release candidate vs 2.7.6,
> > > > > last sha 2.8 was build from :  9d114f3137f92aebc2562a
> > > > > i use yardstick benchmarks, 4 bare machine with:  2x Xeon X5570
> 96Gb
> > > > 512GB
> > > > > SSD 2048GB HDD 10GB/s
> > > > > 1 for  client (driver) and 3 for servers.
> > > > > this mappings for graphs and real yardstick tests:
> > > > >
> > > > > atomic-put: IgnitePutBenchmark
> > > > > sql-merge-query: IgniteSqlMergeQueryBenchmark
> > > > > atomic-get: IgniteGetBenchmark
> > > > > tx-get: IgniteGetTxBenchmark
> > > > > tx-put: IgnitePutTxBenchmark
> > > > > atomic-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllBenchmark
> > > > > tx-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllTxBenchmark
> > > > >
> > > > > cacheMode — partitioned
> > > > > CacheWriteSynchronizationMode.FULL_SYNC
> > > > > 1 backup
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. wal = log_only 2. wal = none 3. persistence disabled.
> > > > > Thanks Maxim for wiki page [1]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
> > > > >
> > > > > do we need some bisect or other work here ?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >--- Forwarded message ---
> > > > > >From: "Maxim Muzafarov" < mmu...@apache.org >
> > > > > >To:  dev@ignite.apache.org
> > > > > >Cc:
> > > > > >Subject: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]
> > > > > >Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:44:31 +0300
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Igniters,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >It's almost a year has passed since the last major Apache Ignite
> 2.7
> > > > > >has been released. We've accumulated a lot of performance
> > improvements
> > > > > >and a lot of new features which are waiting for their release
> date.
> > > > > >Here is my list of the most interesting things from my point since
> > the
> > > > > >last major release:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Service Grid,
> > > > > >Monitoring,
> > > > > >Recovery Read
> > > > > >BLT auto-adjust,
> > > > > >PDS compression,
> > > > > >WAL page compression,
> > > > > >Thin client: best effort affinity,
> > > > > >Thin client: transactions support (not yet)
> > > > > >SQL query history
> > > > > >SQL statistics
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I think we should no longer wait and freeze the master branch
> > anymore
> > > > > >and prepare the next major release by the end of the year.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I propose to discuss Time, Scope of Apache Ignite 2.8 release and
> > also
> > > > > >I want to propose myself to be the release manager of the planning
> > > > > >release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Scope Freeze: November 4, 2019
> > > > > >Code Freeze: November 18, 2019
> > > > > >Voting Date: December 10, 2019
> > > > > >Release Date: December 17, 2019
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >WDYT?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

[Ilya Kasnacheev]

y members on this
> point.
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > As an alternative, for instance, we can bump minor versions only
> for
> >>  > > > those components which have security vulnerabilities. To find
> such
> >>  > > > dependencies, I've run some local test with a maven
> >>  > > > dependency-check-maven [1] an open-source dependency check tool.
> Here
> >>  > > > is a brief report (only a few modules tested):
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > spring-core-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar : CVE-2018-15756 [2]
> >>  > > > h2-1.4.197.jar : CVE-2018-10054, CVE-2018-14335 (discussed also
> [3])
> >>  > > > ignite-shmem-1.0.0.jar : CVE-2017-14614
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > [1] https://jeremylong.github.io/DependencyCheck/index.html
> >>  > > > [2] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-15756
> >>  > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10801
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 at 15:52, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> >>  ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com
> >>  > > >
> >>  > > > wrote:
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > > Hello!
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > > I propose to add the following ticket to the scope:
> >>  > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12259 (3
> commits, be
> >>  > > > careful
> >>  > > > > with release version)
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > > Adding tickets to scope surely seems crazy now, but I will
> provide
> >>  the
> >>  > > > > following considerations:
> >>  > > > > * This is Spring Data 2.2 integration, which we currently do
> not
> >>  have,
> >>  > > > > leading to lots of confused questions on stack overflow and
> mailing
> >>  > > list.
> >>  > > > > Spring Data is important to our public image since many people
> may
> >>  > > learn
> >>  > > > > about out project by starting with Spring Data.
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > > * It has zero code impact outside of its own module (just 2 POM
> >>  file
> >>  > > > > touched and that's all).
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > > * The core was ready since early November but, due to gmail
> quirk,
> >>  we
> >>  > > did
> >>  > > > > not react to it in time.
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > > WDYT?
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > > Another semi-related question. *Should we bump our
> dependencies'
> >>  > > versions
> >>  > > > > before releasing 2.8?* I talk mainly about spring and hibernate
> >>  > > > > dependencies. We could switch them to their latest maintenance
> >>  versions
> >>  > > > to
> >>  > > > > avoid shipping default links to outdated packages.
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > > I think this is one of things that are very hard to do between
> >>  > > releases,
> >>  > > > so
> >>  > > > > I think this dependencies bumping should be a part of a formal
> >>  > > > > release/testing cycle, and then be backported to master.
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > > I could volunteer to do that myself, if we agree to merge these
> >>  version
> >>  > > > > upgrades to ignite-2.8 and then re-test.
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > > Regards,
> >>  > > > > --
> >>  > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > > вт, 24 дек. 2019 г. в 13:22, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> >>  > > >  >>  > > > > >:
> >>  > > > >
> >>  > > > > >
> >>  > > > > > Igniters, i`l try to compare 2.8 release candidate vs 2.7.6,
> >>  > > > > > last sha 2.8 was build from : 9d114f3137f92aebc2562a
> >>  > > > > > i use yardstick benchmarks, 4 bare machine with: 2x Xeon
> X5570
> >>  96Gb
> >>