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

real yardstick tests: > > > > > > > > atomic-put: IgnitePutBenchmark > > > > sql-merge-query: IgniteSqlMergeQueryBenchmark > > > > atomic-get: IgniteGetBenchmark > > > > tx-get: IgniteGetTxBenchmark > > > > tx-put: IgnitePutT

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

> > upgrades to ignite-2.8 and then re-test. >>  > > > > >>  > > > > Regards, >>  > > > > -- >>  > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev >>  > > > > >>  > > > > >>  > > > > вт, 24 дек

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

; > > > -- > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 24 дек. 2019 г. в 13:22, Zhenya Stanilovsky > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ign

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

lease 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 (drive

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

nd real yardstick tests: > > > > > > > > atomic-put: IgnitePutBenchmark > > > > sql-merge-query: IgniteSqlMergeQueryBenchmark > > > > atomic-get: IgniteGetBenchmark > > > > tx-get: IgniteGetTxBenchmark > > > > tx-put: IgnitePutTxBenchmark > >

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

enchmark > > > atomic-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllBenchmark > > > tx-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllTxBenchmark > > > > > > cacheMode — partitioned > > > CacheWriteSynchronizationMode.FULL_SYNC > > > 1 backup > > > > > > 1. wal =

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

> > CacheWriteSynchronizationMode.FULL_SYNC > > > 1 backup > > > > > > 1. wal = log_only 2. wal = none 3. persistence disabled. > > > Thanks Maxim for wiki page [1] > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > https://cwiki.ap

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

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 ? > > >

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

; > > > [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: "

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

> > > > >--- 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 > &

Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

?    > > >--- 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

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Folks, I raised one more blocker for 2.8 [1]. It is about improper results of query execution over REPLICATED cache in presence of MOVING partitions. Fix is already on the way. Will finish with it in couple of days. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12482 пн, 23 дек. 2019 г. в

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Folks, Just for your information. Here is the list of release blockers issues at this moment: [1] IGNITE-9184 [Dmitriy Sorokin] Cluster hangs during concurrent node client and server nodes restart [2] IGNITE-12458 [Pavel Tupitsyn] Rename Affinity Awareness to Partition Awareness [3]

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

>> Shouldn't we target IGNITE-12470 to 2.8? Sure. >> The issue [1] has pinned to 2.8 and raised as the release blocker. Thanks. On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 4:42 PM Zhenya Stanilovsky wrote: > > Folks, > > The issue [1] already in master, submit minor fix with performance > enhancements. > i think

Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Folks, The issue [1] already in master, submit minor fix with performance enhancements. i think it`s not risky to gather it too. thanks! [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12442   >Пятница, 20 декабря 2019, 16:09 +03:00 от Maxim Muzafarov : >  >Folks, > >The issue [1] has pinned

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

Folks, The issue [1] has pinned to 2.8 and raised as the release blocker. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470 On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 16:04, Alexey Goncharuk wrote: > > Anton, > > Shouldn't we target IGNITE-12470 to 2.8? It kind of does not make sense to > add an ability to

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

Anton, Shouldn't we target IGNITE-12470 to 2.8? It kind of does not make sense to add an ability to disable potentially dangerous change only in the next release. чт, 19 дек. 2019 г. в 16:18, Anton Vinogradov : > Pavel, > Issue created - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470 > >

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

Singe, no objections here -> feature merged to 2.8. On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 9:10 PM Николай Ижиков wrote: > Good news, Anton! > > Thanks for your work on PME feature! > > > > 19 дек. 2019 г., в 21:00, Anton Vinogradov написал(а): > > > > Folks, > > "2.8 + cherrypicked pme-free switch" vs "2.8"

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

Good news, Anton! Thanks for your work on PME feature! > 19 дек. 2019 г., в 21:00, Anton Vinogradov написал(а): > > Folks, > "2.8 + cherrypicked pme-free switch" vs "2.8" check finished, no blockers > found. >

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

Folks, "2.8 + cherrypicked pme-free switch" vs "2.8" check finished, no blockers found. https://mtcga.gridgain.com/pr.html?serverId=apache=IgniteTests24Java8_RunAll=pull%2F7165%2Fhead=Latest=pull%2F7102%2Fhead Any objections to merging? On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 4:20 PM Вячеслав Коптилин wrote: >

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

Hello Pavel, Good to hear from you! > I guess we should have a system property to have ability to turn off PME free switch behavior if something goes wrong after release. > After feature battle testing we can remove it in the next release. Sounds good to me. Thanks, S. чт, 19 дек. 2019 г. в

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

Pavel, Issue created - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470 Slava, Does it mean we able to perform merge once I'll provide check results? On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 4:04 PM Вячеслав Коптилин wrote: > Hi Anton, > > >> It would be nice to cut off a new branch from the release and run

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

Hi Anton, >> It would be nice to cut off a new branch from the release and run all the > >> tests with an integrated feature and after that, > >> if you don’t see new failures and the release engineer agrees with the > >> result, then and only then this feature can be merged into the release. > I

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

Anton, Slava I guess we should have a system property to have ability to turn off PME free switch behavior if something goes wrong after release. After feature battle testing we can remove it in the next release. чт, 19 дек. 2019 г. в 15:26, Anton Vinogradov : > Slava, > > >> It would be nice

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

Slava, >> It would be nice to cut off a new branch from the release and run all the >> tests with an integrated feature and after that, >> if you don’t see new failures and the release engineer agrees with the >> result, then and only then this feature can be merged into the release. I fully

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

Hi, > We're releasing release branch, not master... why we're checking the "wrong" branch? :) > Performing the release verification we're checking not only how features work, but also how they work together. Yep, I agree that we should do verification for both branches of corse. > Finally, my

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

Feature already tested at the feature branch properly. Question is about master -> release merge. So: 1) Testing at master does not equal to testing at release. Code may fail in the master while it works at the release branch and vice versa. 2) Master is flakier that release branch, so we able

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

Hello Anton, > We always have to merge all release features asap to have as much time as possible to fix all bugs. Could you please clarify this? What is the reason for that asap merging, especially the merging into the release branch? Why the testing cannot be done on the feature branch? You

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

Folks, We should avoid feature cherrypicking in the later stages of the release process. On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:01 PM Alexei Scherbakov < alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 to Maxim's proposal. > > We need some time of testing to make sure nothing is popping up. > > чт, 19 дек. 2019 г.

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

+1 to Maxim's proposal. We need some time of testing to make sure nothing is popping up. чт, 19 дек. 2019 г. в 12:28, Ivan Pavlukhin : > Not sure that I got the decision about merging "pme-free-switch" to > 2.8 release branch. Personally I like Maxim's proposal. > > Let's do the following: > >

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

Not sure that I got the decision about merging "pme-free-switch" to 2.8 release branch. Personally I like Maxim's proposal. > Let's do the following: > 1. Merge the issue to the master branch. > 2. Wait for two-three weeks of running tests. > 3. Check that there are not flaky failures and fix them

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

Anton, Thank you. Have no objections, let's do it! On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 23:23, Anton Vinogradov wrote: > > Sure, > You may count on my assistance in case of any problems. > We're both in the same boat. > > But I see no reason to delay the "pme-free switch" merge to 2.8. > We always have to

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

Sure, You may count on my assistance in case of any problems. We're both in the same boat. But I see no reason to delay the "pme-free switch" merge to 2.8. We always have to merge all release features asap to have as much time as possible to fix all bugs. I will replace the "feature activation

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

Folks, I have no objections. But I would like to count on your support in cases of any release-blocking issues. Can I? Anton, Let's do the following: 1. Merge the issue to the master branch. 2. Wait for two-three weeks of running tests. 3. Check that there are not flaky failures and fix them

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

+1 to include PME free switch to 2.8 ср, 18 дек. 2019 г., 8:31 Anton Vinogradov : > Maxim, > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9913 (Pme-free switch) ready > to be merged to master. > How about to include it to the 2.8 too? > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:31 PM Ivan Pavlukhin > wrote:

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

Hello! I have found a regression to 2.7 which unfortunately was not caught by our tests: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12428 It would be nice to fix it before releasing 2.8. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev пн, 9 дек. 2019 г. в 14:58, Ivan Pavlukhin : > Maxim, > > > I see the

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

Maxim, > I see the issue [1] is unassigned. Do we have a person who will fix it > bravely? :) Let's wait Saikat as an original ticket contributor. > P.S. The issue [1] doesn't seem to be a truly release `blocker`. For me it sounds not good to intentionally include such behavior into product

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

Ivan, I see the issue [1] is unassigned. Do we have a person who will fix it bravely? :) If not I think it's better to revert the issue from the 2.8 release branch and fix it in a calm manner in the master branch. I suppose there will be enough of such changes to perform a next minor release

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

Saikat, igniters I raised a blocker [1] for 2.8 related to recently implemented default query timeout [2]. Currently we have a buggy behavior for thin JDBC driver when a default timeout is configured. Actually I see 2 options to go: 1. Fix the issue with thin JDBC [1]. 2. Exclude a default query

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

Slava, Thanks for noticing. I think we can include both of them. Do you need any help from my side? On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 14:02, Вячеслав Коптилин wrote: > > Hello Maxim, > > I found two issues that should be included in the upcoming AI 2.8, I think. > [1]

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

Hello Maxim, I found two issues that should be included in the upcoming AI 2.8, I think. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12409 - Already done and can be cherry-picked into the release branch. [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12419 - This one looks like a blocker

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

No objections. вт, 3 дек. 2019 г. в 15:02, Maxim Muzafarov : > Alexey, > > > Yet another issue [1] with corrupted B+Tree exception on the master branch. > My suggestion is to revert the IGNITE-11704 [3] issue from the master > branch and rework the patch. > > Any objections? > > Configuration: >

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

Alexey, Yet another issue [1] with corrupted B+Tree exception on the master branch. My suggestion is to revert the IGNITE-11704 [3] issue from the master branch and rework the patch. Any objections? Configuration: [1] persistence = false [2] persistence = true class

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

Maxim, I'm not sure this is purely a "tombstone" problem, could be a tree concurrency issue. Looks like the investigation is required. For example, tombstone logic can be reverted but test logic is kept. It seems Ivan Rakov already suggested to revert a commit from master branch in another

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

Maxim, I think it would be safer to revert https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11704 from 2.8 release if there are questions regarding its impact on TC stability. The fix just provides better approach for handling conflicts with removes (instead of in-memory deferred deletes queue). It

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

Igniters, I've found a scary error [1] with `CorruptedTreeException: B+Tree is corrupted` on TC in the master branch. It seems that the issue is related to a [2] tombstone implementation (probably not). Can anyone confirm that the problem is still actual? If it is true, do we have time for

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

Igniters, I've had conversations with Nikolay and Alexey about working progress [1] on ML, Spark, Monitoring features which we are waiting for. It seems the progress dates is a bit slower than we expected earlier. I'd suggest the following dates: 2 December - the release branch cutting. 30

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

Alexey, Not yet. I will announce the release branch cutting stage with a separate post, probably, for a one week before the cut. No one will not miss it for sure. Currently, all issues can safely be pinned to 2.8 release, but for huge issues\features (e.g. `baseline topology`, `persistence`)

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

Maxim, A side note - we did not cut the 2.8 branch yet, did we? This information is not reflected on the release page and I just realized that it is hard to choose a fix version for a ticket that is being merged to master when release scope is being finalized. This moment is covered neither in

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

Igniters, Ivan, Yes, it's true that currently, all resolved issues with 2.8 fixVersion will get into 2.8 release. Moreover, I've marked all issues with empty fixVersion filed closed since 2.7 major release with 2.8 labels. On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 15:03, Ivan Pavlukhin wrote: > > Maxim, > > Could

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

@Ivan I'm working on blocker ticket, tensorflow integration depends on IGFS вт, 5 нояб. 2019 г. в 15:09, Ivan Pavlukhin : > Folks, > > What about IGFS and Hadoop Accelerator discontinuation [1]? > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11942 > > вт, 5 нояб. 2019 г. в 15:03, Ivan

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

Folks, What about IGFS and Hadoop Accelerator discontinuation [1]? [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11942 вт, 5 нояб. 2019 г. в 15:03, Ivan Pavlukhin : > > Maxim, > > Could you please elaborate about a question from Akash. What tickets > do we consider for release? All with 2.8

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

Maxim, Could you please elaborate about a question from Akash. What tickets do we consider for release? All with 2.8 fix version in Jira or there is a different criteria? вт, 5 нояб. 2019 г. в 15:01, Ivan Pavlukhin : > > Alexey, > > True. It is definitely to early for Calcite. > > вт, 5 нояб.

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

Alexey, True. It is definitely to early for Calcite. вт, 5 нояб. 2019 г. в 14:46, Alexey Zinoviev : > > I have no ideas, I think it's enough for this release. > > As I understand it's not the proper time for Calcite integration and so on, > isn't it @Igor Seliverstov? > > вт, 5 нояб. 2019 г. в

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

I have no ideas, I think it's enough for this release. As I understand it's not the proper time for Calcite integration and so on, isn't it @Igor Seliverstov? вт, 5 нояб. 2019 г. в 14:41, Maxim Muzafarov : > Igniters, > > Do we want to discuss something? > What else features do we want to

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

Igniters, Do we want to discuss something? What else features do we want to include? If not, I propose to exclude any other major features (except already discussed - ML, Monitoring, Spark) and focus on bug fixing and the master branch stabilization. On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 at 17:57, Akash Shinde

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

Because I didn't see it in this list https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Releaseissuesgroupedbystatus Just wanted to make sure its a part on 2.8. Thanks, Akash On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 8:20 PM Ivan Pavlukhin wrote: > Hi Akash, > > Why do you

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

Hi Akash, Why do you think it is not included? I see fix version 2.8 in ticket [1]. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10884 ср, 30 окт. 2019 г. в 17:29, Akash Shinde : > > Hi, > Could you please include IGNITE-10884 > in 2.8

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

Hi, Could you please include IGNITE-10884 in 2.8 release. This issue is blocker for me. Thanks, Akash On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 7:38 PM Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > Folks, > > > It seems a week ago I've replied with the release info only to

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

Folks, It seems a week ago I've replied with the release info only to Artem. Sorry about that :-) Here is what I've collected. Let's discuss! Igniters, I've prepared the Apache Ignite 2.8 release page [1] with the list of known issues which are related to 2.8 release and about the

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

Hi Maxim, I'm glad to see that you care about documentation. Way to go! Here is a couple of points that can help: 1) I think it's safe to assume that Prachi will not work on the Ignite documentation any longer. You can take up the issues assigned to her and prioritize them whichever way is

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

Ilya, I agree that issues related to `documentation` can be safely postponed, however, for me the whole batch of such issues looks unmanageable and unclear. At least we should prioritize all of them to complete the maximum that we can by the deadline. On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 19:47, Ilya

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

Hello! I think that Documentation tickets may be safely postponed until final stages of release, since it's not included in artifacts, rather available on readme.io, etc. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev чт, 10 окт. 2019 г. в 14:41, Pavel Kovalenko : > Issues link is broken, because it has a

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

Issues link is broken, because it has a filter that can't be found. Here is correct link:

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

Igniters, Who can advise what we can\should do with the issues related to `documentation` component to release Ignite 2.8 version? How can I sort them and prioritize? What are best-practices here? Currently, we have 81 issues pinned to 2.8 release [1]. 6 - `In Progress` 2 - `Patch Available`

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

Maxim, This sounds reasonable to me. - Denis On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 8:55 AM Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > Folks, > > Since we are focusing on new SQL engine implementation I'd like to > perform bulk moving of all MVCC related unassigned tickets [1] to the > next release. > Can you confirm? > >

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

Folks, Since we are focusing on new SQL engine implementation I'd like to perform bulk moving of all MVCC related unassigned tickets [1] to the next release. Can you confirm? [1]

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

Alexey Z., Could you please answer some of the questions > - IGNITE-11942 IGFS and Hadoop Accelerator Discontinuation [2]. > Probably should be moved to the next release due to dependency on > Tensorflow. Need to check. (Andrey Gura) Can we decouple Tensorflow from the IGFS? Mark all the

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

Alexey, Thank you for setting up the right issue statuses. I've updated the list of components we are waiting for [1]. Please, check that I've not missed anything. One more thing: I propose to exclude `minor' priority issues from that list or mark them `major`. WDYT? [1]

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

Igniters! Do we want to have full JDK 11 support (compile and run) this release? Or should we postpone it until at least 3.0? > On 1 Oct 2019, at 17:19, Alexey Zinoviev wrote: > > Hi, you could find here > > ML tickets that should be resolved in the Ignite 2.8 (Umbrella tickets, > bugs,

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

Hi, you could find here ML tickets that should be resolved in the Ignite 2.8 (Umbrella tickets, bugs, minor improvements, integration tests via examples)

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

Igniters, Here is the list of activities we've agreed on to prepare the Apache Ignite 2.8 release. 1. Preliminary release dates with the ability to shift them if some of the planned activities will not be finalized. But anyway we should build our engagement based on these dates. Scope Freeze:

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

Maxim, Folks, Could you please share a results of the Slack discussion from Sep 25? ср, 25 сент. 2019 г. в 15:50, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > Hi Maxim, > > Thank you for preparing the release page! > > Could you please add Require release notes filter? You can find an example > in

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

Hi Maxim, Thank you for preparing the release page! Could you please add Require release notes filter? You can find an example in https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.7.6 Sincerely Dmitriy Pavlov ср, 25 сент. 2019 г. в 11:58, Maxim Muzafarov : > Igniters, > > >

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

Hi Igniters, I suppose discussion is still at phase 0-Initializing https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process So it is probably no reason to discuss particular blockers. It would make sense when the process of removal irrelevant tickets starts (phase 1.2) and till phase

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

Hello, Igniters. I want to notice one more blocker for release [1]. This bug can lead to some incorrect baseline default enabled flag calculation(more details in the ticket). [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12227 --  Best regards, Anton Kalashnikov 24.09.2019, 17:01, "Andrey

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

Sergey, As I know, scope freeze is not announced yet. On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 4:41 PM Sergey Antonov wrote: > > Hi, I would add to release scope my ticket [1]. > > Any objections? > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12225 > > вт, 24 сент. 2019 г. в 09:21, Nikolay Izhikov : > >

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

Alexey, > The planned before 2_3 months release dates are good defender from > partially merged features, In my opinion Agree. But it doesn't protect from cases when we have something in progress and partially merged to the master branch. > Or we should have Master and dev branch separetely,

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

Maxim, We can't do it because there is no strong rules about the process. But I have an idea how we can release 2.8 faster (but I still don't see any reasons for forcing release). We can create release branch before first IEP-35 related commit and cherry-pick all commits from master branch to

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

Hi, I would add to release scope my ticket [1]. Any objections? [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12225 вт, 24 сент. 2019 г. в 09:21, Nikolay Izhikov : > > merge to master only fully finished features > > It's already true for Ignite master branch. > > > В Вт, 24/09/2019 в 09:03

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

> merge to master only fully finished features It's already true for Ignite master branch. В Вт, 24/09/2019 в 09:03 +0300, Alexey Zinoviev пишет: > The planned before 2_3 months release dates are good defender from > partially merged features, In my opinion > > Or we should have Master and dev

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

The planned before 2_3 months release dates are good defender from partially merged features, In my opinion Or we should have Master and dev branch separetely, and merge to master only fully finished features пн, 23 сент. 2019 г., 20:27 Maxim Muzafarov : > Andrey, > > Agree with you. It can

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

Andrey, Agree with you. It can affect the user impression. Can you advise, how can we guarantee in our case when we complete with current partially merged features that someone will not partially merge the new one? Should we monitor the master branch commits for such purpose? On Mon, 23 Sep

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

Maxim, >> From my point, if some components will not be ready by >> previously discussed `scope freeze` date it is absolutely OK to >> perform the next (e.g. 2.8.1, 2.8.2) releases. It is good approach if partial implemented features aren't merged to master branch. Unfortunately this is not our

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

Got it. Agree with you. I think we can finish almost all of this tickets till November. В Пн, 23/09/2019 в 20:12 +0300, Andrey Gura пишет: > > > From my point of view monitoring isn't ready for release. > > Can you clarify, what exactly is not ready? > > Can we track planned changes somehow? >

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

>> From my point of view monitoring isn't ready for release. > Can you clarify, what exactly is not ready? > Can we track planned changes somehow? We have too many not resolved tickets under IEP-35 label [1]. Also it makes sense to do some usability testing: JMX beans interfaces, system views,

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

Folks, Ok, let's have a discussion using the ASF Slack on September 25-th, 17-00 (MSK) I've created the channel [1] #ignite-release-2_8 Please, join. I don't think we should postpone the discussion by November but should plan and discuss for now the next release dates. In this way, the

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

Hello, Andrey. > From my point of view monitoring isn't ready for release. Can you clarify, what exactly is not ready? Can we track planned changes somehow? В Пн, 23/09/2019 в 17:59 +0300, Andrey Gura пишет: > Igniters, > > From my point of view monitoring isn't ready for release. So it would

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

Igniters, >From my point of view monitoring isn't ready for release. So it would be great to return to this discussion later. It seems that beginning of November is good time for it. On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:37 PM Alexey Zinoviev wrote: > > Nikolay Izhikov, ok, let's arrange the talk in ASF

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

Nikolay Izhikov, ok, let's arrange the talk in ASF slack between 16 and 19 MSK, is it possible? пн, 23 сент. 2019 г. в 17:35, Alexey Zinoviev : > Ok, I'll clarify the situation > > 1. Currently, the ML module is like a black box for me. What exactly > we are expected to get by the code freeze

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

Ok, I'll clarify the situation 1. Currently, the ML module is like a black box for me. What exactly we are expected to get by the code freeze date? Do we have tickets we should address to? - Yes, we have a few epics that are not finished yet, due to limited free time the planned dates were

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

+1 to start releasing 2.8 in November or even in the end of October. Alex, can we schedule some quick meetings in the new Ignite Slack chat and discuss all release date details? Wendseday, 25 September is good for you? В Пн, 23/09/2019 в 13:31 +0300, Maxim Muzafarov пишет: > Alexey, > > Can

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

Alexey, Can you, please, clarify some questions. 1. Currently, the ML module is like a black box for me. What exactly we are expected to get by the code freeze date? Do we have tickets we should address to? 2. I think we can move code freeze date to December 11-th but, from your side, do you

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

I wrote about code freeze at December 18, 2019, ok, we can move one week earlier to 11 December Voting + Release could be after 10th January. пт, 20 сент. 2019 г. в 15:43, Maxim Muzafarov : > Alexey, > > It is not a problem to shift release a bit later or earlier, but I'm > strictly against

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

Alexey, It is not a problem to shift release a bit later or earlier, but I'm strictly against having `code freeze` stage on holidays (the Christmas holidays at the end of December and New Year holidays at the beginning of January). From my point, it's better to have it completed `code freeze`

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

+1 For Maxim as release manager. Maxim, It is a good thing that you have committer rights, and most of the steps you will be able to complete yourself. But please engage one from PMC member to complete steps from the release process where PMC rights are required

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

For Spark and ML components the best dates should be moved to one month later, what's about? There are a lot of features there, but a lot of bugs and minor improvements in JIRA too Also I support you as a release manager Scope Freeze: December 4, 2019 Code Freeze: December 18, 2019 Voting Date:

Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

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

<    1   2