Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

@Alex Plehanov , I crossed off the step 6.3.4 (technical docs publication) of the release process by adding the new docs to the website's menu. You can find them by going to the

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Is it possible/reasonable to run a single vote for Ignite 2.9 and all the migrated extensions? This time. @Alex Plehanov , what do you think? If we decide to release the versions 1.0.0 of the extensions after 2.9 is out then it can last for a week or so...because we need to build, update docs,

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hi Denis, All the modules except OSGi have been migrated. Alexey is creating a separate ticket for OSGi and we can migrate the same as well. My thoughts are Apache Ignite 2.9.0 and migrated extensions 1.0.0 to be released together. I am thinking depending on the voting process and testing cycles

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Saikat, Alex, Based on your inputs here, it sounds like once Ignite 2.9 gets released, all the integrations that made their way to the extensions repo [1] will get stuck in limbo for some time. What I mean here: 1. While the users will be bumping up their ignite-core, ignite-indexing, etc.

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Alexey, For me, all three look quite critical as they: address a memory leak, address a usability/performance issue with no workaround, and address a regression in 2.8. If we want to limit the scope, I would still include the memory leak fix, though. Thoughts? пн, 12 окт. 2020 г. в 13:07, Alex

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

This patch [1] interesting only a deployment where clients often reconnecting (stopping/starting) to cluster. In these cases Coordinator node could fail by OOM, even the cluster did not use MVCC caches. On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 1:41 PM Zhenya Stanilovsky wrote: > > > without [2] and [3] we

Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

without [2] and [3] we obtain unexpected fields in index creation and as a consequence buggy sql execution and pla of course.   >Guys, > >I've found 3 more tickets which were targeted to 2.9 but merged only to the >master branch ([1], [2], [3]). >Do we need these tickets in 2.9? Are they

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Guys, I've found 3 more tickets which were targeted to 2.9 but merged only to the master branch ([1], [2], [3]). Do we need these tickets in 2.9? Are they critical? [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12350 [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13376 [3]:

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Igniters, IGNITE-13553 fixed and cherry-picked to 2.9. We can continue with the release. > 10 окт. 2020 г., в 00:00, Denis Magda написал(а): > > Nikolay, > > re: the minor improvements. I'm not against of including those if we can > prepare the docs before the vote starts. Presently, the docs

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Nikolay, re: the minor improvements. I'm not against of including those if we can prepare the docs before the vote starts. Presently, the docs are "frozen" for the 2.9 release, but I can scratch some time and take part in the docs review the next week. - Denis On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 12:40 AM

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hello, Igniters. I prepared a patch [1] for blocker ticket [2] - «Server node fail and stops in case wrong datatype put in indexed field» Can someone, please, help me with the review? [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8330 [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13553

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

@Alex Plehanov , If it still makes sense and not too late, you can cherry-pick the commit with the new docs into the 2.9 branch: https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/073488ac97517bbaad9f6b94b781fc404646f191 Anyway, it's not crucial as long as we agreed to make an exception for this release.

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hi Alexey, Thank you for your email. Yes, I can certainly use help in the release process. I am thinking around the month of Nov for the releases after the In-Memory Computing Summit Virtual 2020 but any of the module can be released before that timeline. I have a tech talk coming up on Oct 28

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Saikat, The plan sounds good to me! Do you have an idea for the timeline of the module releases? Let me know if I can help in any way. Also, I was looking into the modularization IEP and noticed that OSGI module is discussed to be moved to the extensions, but there is no corresponding ticket.

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hi Alexey, All the modules as planned in IEP-36 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-36:+Modularization are migrated to ignite-extensions repository. We can definitely plan to release ignite-extensions modules. I have a pending PR related to the kafka module and the PR is in

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Guys, I've tried to build release candidate using TC [1]. But: 1. I can't choose a branch in this TC task (there is no such field). 2. On the "default" branch I got an error: Failed to collect changes, error: List remote refs failed: org.apache.http.conn.ConnectTimeoutException: Connect to

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Saikat, Nikolay, We have migrated a bunch of modules to ignite-extensions recently. Given that these modules will not be available in Ignite 2.9 anymore (will they?), should we also plan to release the extensions? ср, 23 сент. 2020 г. в 21:49, Alex Plehanov : > Igniters, > > I've prepared

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Igniters, I've prepared release notes for the 2.9 release [1]. Can anyone review it, please? [1]: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8273 вт, 22 сент. 2020 г. в 09:39, Alex Plehanov : > Guys, > > I've filled the ticket with reproducer [1] for the discovery bug. This bug > caused by [2]

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Guys, I've filled the ticket with reproducer [1] for the discovery bug. This bug caused by [2] ticket. We discussed with Vladimir Steshin privately and decided to revert this ticket. I will do it today (after TC bot visa) if there are no objections. [1]:

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Guys, During internal testing, we've found a critical bug with discovery (cluster falls apart if two nodes segmented sequentially). This problem is not reproduced in 2.8.1. I think we should fix it before release. Under investigation now. I'll let you know when we get something. чт, 17 сент.

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

> So what do you think? Should we proceed with a 'hacked' version of the > message factory in 2.9 and go for the runtime message generation in later > release, or keep the code clean and fix the regression in the next releases? > Andrey, can you take a look at my change? I think it is fairly >

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hi guys, Alex, Currently, we are working on the Apache Ignite Kubernetes Operator that should help with packaging, deploying, and managing the application in the k8s world. And it turned out that current docker images are not suitable for running in k8s, cause they won't propagate the signals

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Alexey, We've benchmarked the whole set of tests tonight in both persistent and in-memory modes on the current 2.9 branch (with minor tracing optimization merged). And on our environment, we've got 0-2.5% drop for each benchmark compared to 2.8.1. I think it is an acceptable result. So, I'm ok

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Alexey, Andrey, Igniters, So what do you think? Should we proceed with a 'hacked' version of the message factory in 2.9 and go for the runtime message generation in later release, or keep the code clean and fix the regression in the next releases? Andrey, can you take a look at my change? I think

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Alexey, We've benchmarked by yardstick commits 130376741bf vs ed52559eb95 and the performance of ed52559eb95 is better for about 2.5% on average on our environment (about the same results we got benchmarking 65c30ec6 vs 0606f03d). We've made 24 runs for each commit of IgnitePutTxImplicitBenchmark

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hi Everyone, I posted an instruction on how to publish the docs on ignite.apache.org/docs [1]. When you finish with Ignite 2.9, you can update the docs by following the instruction. Unfortunately, I won't be able to spend any time on this project any longer. You can send your pull requests and

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Alexey, I've tried to play with message factories locally, but unfortunately, I cannot spot the difference between old and new implementation in distributed benchmarks. I pushed an implementation of MessageFactoryImpl with the old switch statement to the ignite-2.9-revert-12568 branch (discussed

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hello guys, I've tried to optimize tracing implementation (ticket [1]), it reduced the drop, but not completely removed it. Ivan Rakov, Alexander Lapin, can you please review the patch? Ivan Artiukhov, can you please benchmark the patch [2] against 2.8.1 release on your environment? With this

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Alexey, I propose to include [1] issue to the 2.9 release. Since this issue is related to the new master key change functionality which haven't been released yet I think it will be safe to cherry-pick commit to the release branch. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13390 On Tue, 1

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hello, Igniters. Alexey, please, include one more Python thin client fix [1] into the 2.9 release It fixes kinda major issue - "Python client returns fields in wrong order since the 2 row when fields_count>10" [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12809 [2]

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Alexey, thanks, got it. I am not sure we can optimize anything out of the message factory with suppliers (at least I have no ideas right now), so most likely the only move here is to switch back to the switch approach somehow preserving the metrics part. Probably, inlining the Ignite messages to

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Alexey, sorry, I wrongly interpreted our benchmark results. Actually, we were looking for a drop using bi-sect in the range between e6a7f93 (first commit in the 2.9 branch after 2.8 branch cut) and 6592dfa5 (last commit in the 2.9 branch). And we found these two problematic commits. Perhaps only

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hello, Igniters. Let’s include in the 2.9 release IGNITE-12718 [1] This is a closed scope feature of the python thin client. It was requested by some of our users. [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/baf8c673c41a1790ef0a244862e6abfbd4eadbf5 > 31 авг. 2020 г., в 13:25, Alexey Goncharuk

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Alexey, While investigating, I found that IGNITE-12568 has an incorrect fix version and is actually present in ignite-2.8.1 branch [1], so it cannot be the source of the drop against 2.8.1. P.S. Looks like we need to enforce a more accurate work with fix versions or develop some sort of tooling

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

пт, 28 авг. 2020 г. в 11:16, Alex Plehanov : > Guys, > > We have benchmarked 2.9 without IGNITE-13060 and IGNITE-12568 (reverted it > locally) and got the same performance as on 2.8.1 > > IGNITE-13060 (Tracing) - some code was added to hot paths, to trace these > hot paths, it's clear why we have

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hi Ivan, The documentation for Ignite 2.9 is kept here: https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/IGNITE-7595/docs There is a readme file with instructions. You can make a pull request to this branch. However, the installation instruction for Ignite C++ hasn't been created yet. If you want, you

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Artem, in ignite 2.9 a way to build C++ for linux/mac os x was changed (autotools to cmake). As an author of this change, I want to contribute in documentation. As far as I understand, now it should be done through PR to specific repository. Could you please help me with this? пт, 28 авг. 2020 г.

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hi Guys, As I understand we will be merging some tickets to release. May I suggest also add ticket [1] to 2.9 release. There are not a lot of changes in code but It's a critical fix for the ability to launch ignite in lamba on Azure(There are not any workaround). So if nobody minds let's

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Guys, We have benchmarked 2.9 without IGNITE-13060 and IGNITE-12568 (reverted it locally) and got the same performance as on 2.8.1 IGNITE-13060 (Tracing) - some code was added to hot paths, to trace these hot paths, it's clear why we have performance drop here. IGNITE-12568 (MessageFactory

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Looks beautiful and easy to use, thanks, Artem! Could you please add the following copyright to the footer of the pages? *© 2020 The Apache Software Foundation.* *Apache, Apache Ignite, the Apache feather and the Apache Ignite logo are either registered trademarks or trademarks of The Apache

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hi everyone, We published the draft of Ignite 2.9 documentation on the Apache Ignite web-site. The docs are available via the following link: https://ignite.apache.org/docs/2.9.0/installation/installing-using-docker Alex, Is there an estimate for the release date? -Artem On 26.08.2020

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Denis, Currently, we are running mostly IgnitePutTxImplicitBenchmark without persistence. For other benchmarks drop is lower and it's harder to find problematic commit. ср, 26 авг. 2020 г. в 17:34, Denis Magda : > Alex, > > Thanks for sending an update. The drop is quite big. What are the types

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Alex, Thanks for sending an update. The drop is quite big. What are the types of benchmarks you are observing the degradation for (atomic puts, transactions, sql, etc.)? Let us know if any help by particular committers is required. - Denis On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:26 AM Alex Plehanov

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hello, guys! We finally have some benchmark results. Looks like there is more than one commit with a performance drop. Detected drops for those commits only slightly higher than measurement error, so it was hard to find them and we are not completely sure we found them all and found them right.

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hello! Readme.io uses blue book :) https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/performance-tips I was thinking of something along a blue circle with `i' in it, for information items. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev ср, 19 авг. 2020 г. в 18:29, Artem Budnikov : > > Search does not seem to work. > It

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Search does not seem to work. It uses mockups right now, but it should be ready when the docs are released. I can see that note blocks are just annotated with "Note." Can we have some image there? Do you have a preference as to which image you would like to see there? -Artem On 19.08.2020

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hello! Search does not seem to work. Are we going to have a proper search results page? It is often the case that there's none. I can see that note blocks are just annotated with "Note." Can we have some image there? Example is http://64.227.57.229/docs/2.9.0/persistence/persistence-tuning

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hi everyone, We've set up a staging site for the Ignite 2.9 docs: http://64.227.57.229/docs/2.9.0/installation/installing-using-docker user/pass: ignite/apache2020 More content is being added, but that's basically what it will look like. Your comments are welcome. -Artem On 18.08.2020

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Ok, I'm just asking, there is no rush for this ticket. If the release is postponed anyway, I thought that we can include more fixes. On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:10 PM Alex Plehanov wrote: > Pavel, > > We still can't find the root cause of performance drop. > > Ticket IGNITE-13369 still in

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Pavel, We still can't find the root cause of performance drop. Ticket IGNITE-13369 still in progress. When it will be resolved? Is it really critical bug? According to the user-list thread attached to the ticket, there is a workaround exists for this problem and looks like it's not so critical.

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Alex, What's the status of the release? Can we include a bug fix there [1]? [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13369 On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 11:14 AM Alex Plehanov wrote: > Hello, > > > What is the release date for 2.9, from the cwiki it still says August 7 > We have a

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hello, > What is the release date for 2.9, from the cwiki it still says August 7 We have a performance drop on the new release and still trying to find the problematic commit. I hope we will find it in a week + there are one or two weeks needed for voting and further release steps. пт, 14 авг.

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

What is the release date for 2.9, from the cwiki it still says August 7 : https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.9 -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hi Everyone, I looked at the documentation tasks for Ignite 2.9 [1] and noticed that some of them were being worked on. I'll take a look at the other tickets (unassigned or assigned to me). I hope I'll have enough time to finish them by the time of the release. -Artem [1]:

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Ivan, Thank you. We've got performance drop on our benchmarks too. We are trying to bisect changes and find problematic commit now. чт, 6 авг. 2020 г. в 14:51, Ivan Artiukhov : > Hello, > > I've compared performances of 2.9 and 2.8.1 using Yardstick and some > atomic/transactional/SQL

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hello, I've compared performances of 2.9 and 2.8.1 using Yardstick and some atomic/transactional/SQL operations. Ignite 2.9 is up to 7% slower in my configuration. Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13337 for details. Is this performance drop a blocker for 2.9 release? --

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

I recently found, that control.sh is broken since 2.8.0 a little bit. Script returns always 0 code, despite the fact, that CommandHandler returns code correctly. Here is the issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13328, patch is available. пт, 31 июл. 2020 г. в 14:09, Alex Plehanov :

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Ivan, IGNITE-13306 cherry-picked to 2.9 пт, 31 июл. 2020 г. в 13:43, Ivan Rakov : > Hi Alex, > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13306 is merged to master. > Can you please cherry-pick to 2.9? > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:42 PM Ilya Kasnacheev > wrote: > >> Hello! >> >> I don't

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hi Alex, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13306 is merged to master. Can you please cherry-pick to 2.9? On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:42 PM Ilya Kasnacheev wrote: > Hello! > > I don't think that IGNITE-13006 > is a blocker in any >

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hello! I don't think that IGNITE-13006 is a blocker in any way. It is a good candidate for 3.0. ignite-spring will work with 4.x Spring as well as 5.x and the user is free to bump Spring version. I think bumping this dependency explicitly is

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Guys, Is there a chance to squeeze the fix for the following issue in: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13306 ? The issue makes the CPU load metric show -1 on Java 11. This is a quite important metric, and this bug makes it harder

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Guys, I've cherry-picked IGNITE-12438 (One-way client-server connections) and IGNITE-13038 (Web console removing) to 2.9. Since there are no objections I will move IGNITE-13006 (Spring libs upgrade to 5.2 version), IGNITE-12489 (Error during purges by expiration) and IGNITE-12553 (public Java

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Alex, Denis Issue with moving of Web Console to separate repository is merged to master. See: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13038 Please, consider to cherry-pick to ignite-2.9 --- Alexey Kuznetsov

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hi guys, considering Denis's question: [1] ("inverse TCP connection establishment") is already in master. I think we should port it in 2.9, would be a good thing. "Serverless functions" [2] support is code complete in a private branch, it's safe to say that the issue will be completed next week

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Sharing a correct link for the Web Console task: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13038 - Denis On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 7:59 AM Denis Magda wrote: > Hi Alex, > > Thanks for wrapping this up and sharing the progress. > > I've continued the discussion in the Hadoop thread. Let's

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hi Alex, Thanks for wrapping this up and sharing the progress. I've continued the discussion in the Hadoop thread. Let's take a couple of days to solve all open questions. Personally, I don't see any reason to put the merge off to Ignite 3.0. Also, I would try to deliver the following two

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Guys, We are in code-freeze phase now. I've moved almost all non-blocker unresolved tickets from 2.9 to the next release. If you think that some ticket is a blocker and should be included into 2.9 release, please write a note in this thread. There are some tickets with "blocker" priority

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Ivan, Merged to 2.9. Thanks пт, 17 июл. 2020 г. в 01:35, Ivan Rakov : > Alex, > > Tracing is merged to master: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13060 > > Can you please port it to 2.9? > For you convenience, there's PR versus 2.9 with conflicts resolved: >

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Alex, Tracing is merged to master: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13060 Can you please port it to 2.9? For you convenience, there's PR versus 2.9 with conflicts resolved: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8046/files -- Best Regards, Ivan Rakov On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 5:33 PM

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Ivan, Looks like master is broken after IGNITE-13246 (but everything is ok in 2.9 branch) ср, 15 июл. 2020 г. в 18:54, Alex Plehanov : > Zhenya, Ivan, > > I've cherry-picked IGNITE-13229 and IGNITE-13246 to ignite-2.9 branch. > Thank you. > > ср, 15 июл. 2020 г. в 18:31, Ivan Bessonov : > >>

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Zhenya, Ivan, I've cherry-picked IGNITE-13229 and IGNITE-13246 to ignite-2.9 branch. Thank you. ср, 15 июл. 2020 г. в 18:31, Ivan Bessonov : > Guys, > > can you please backport https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13246 > to ignite-2.9? Me and Alexey Kuznetsov really want these new

Re: Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Guys, can you please backport https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13246 to ignite-2.9? Me and Alexey Kuznetsov really want these new events in release. This time I prepared PR with resolved conflicts: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8042 Thank you! вт, 14 июл. 2020 г. в 19:39,

Re[2]: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

  Alex, i also suggest to merge this  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13229 too, GridClient leakage and further TC OOM preventing.   >Ivan, > >It was already in release scope as discussed in this thread. > >вт, 14 июл. 2020 г. в 14:31, Ivan Rakov < ivan.glu...@gmail.com >: >  >>

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Ivan, It was already in release scope as discussed in this thread. вт, 14 июл. 2020 г. в 14:31, Ivan Rakov : > Hi, > > We are still waiting for a final review of Tracing functionality [1] until > the end of tomorrow (July 15). > We anticipate that it will be merged to Ignite master no later

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hi, We are still waiting for a final review of Tracing functionality [1] until the end of tomorrow (July 15). We anticipate that it will be merged to Ignite master no later than July 16. Sorry for being a bit late here. Alex P., can you include [1] to the release scope? [1]:

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Alex, Can you cherry-pick to Ignite 2.9 this issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13246 ? This issue is about BASELINE events and it is very useful for notification external tools about changes in baseline. Thank you! --- Alexey Kuznetsov

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Ilya, Yes, it works, thank you. I will update POM version today. пн, 13 июл. 2020 г. в 16:01, Ilya Kasnacheev : > Hello! > > It seems that it works and we now have 2.9 nightlies. > > Guys, can you please bump the master POM version to 2.10.0-SNAPSHOT? > > Regards, > -- > Ilya Kasnacheev > > >

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hello! It seems that it works and we now have 2.9 nightlies. Guys, can you please bump the master POM version to 2.10.0-SNAPSHOT? Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev пт, 10 июл. 2020 г. в 17:43, Ilya Kasnacheev : > Hello! > > I have also set up nightly builds to (hopefully) build 2.9 > > Regards, >

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hello! I have also set up nightly builds to (hopefully) build 2.9 Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev вт, 7 июл. 2020 г. в 17:04, Ilya Kasnacheev : > Hello! > > I have changed the schedule condition so ignite-2.9 will be run instead. > Please check if it works tomorrow. > > Regards, > -- > Ilya

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hello! I have changed the schedule condition so ignite-2.9 will be run instead. Please check if it works tomorrow. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev вт, 7 июл. 2020 г. в 16:42, Alex Plehanov : > Guys, > > Can somebody help with creating scheduled build triggers for nightly "Run > All" on TC for

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Guys, Can somebody help with creating scheduled build triggers for nightly "Run All" on TC for "ignite-2.9" branch? Also, I found that we still have a nightly "Run All" for "ignite-2.8" branch [1]. Do we still need it? Or just forgot to remove it after release? [1] :

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Anton, thank you. Guys, I've cut the release branch. From now on please pin resolved in the master branch tickets to 2.10 release in Jira and cherry-pick targeted to 2.9 tickets to ignite-2.9 branch. As far as the release branch cut was delayed, I propose to move code freeze dates by one week

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

You're now at the "Ignite Release Managers" group. Please check you gain access. On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:38 PM Alex Plehanov wrote: > Guys, > > I've created the 2.9 release confluence page [1]. > Also, I found that I don't have permission to Team City release tasks. Can > anyone give me such

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Guys, I've created the 2.9 release confluence page [1]. Also, I found that I don't have permission to Team City release tasks. Can anyone give me such permissions? [1]: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.9 пт, 26 июн. 2020 г. в 13:38, Alexey Zinoviev : >

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Igniters Unfortunately, the ML model export/import feature is under development yet. I need to delay it before the 2.10 release. пт, 26 июн. 2020 г. в 06:50, Alex Plehanov : > Denis, > > Yes, I still ready to manage it. > Today I will

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Denis, Yes, I still ready to manage it. Today I will prepare a release page on wiki and will try to go over tickets list. Also, I have plans to cut the branch by the end of next week if there are no objections. пт, 26 июн. 2020 г. в 03:48, Denis Magda : > Igniters, > > Are we moving forward

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Igniters, Are we moving forward with this release? Alex Plehanov, are you still ready to manage it? It seems like everyone agreed with the timeline you proposed in the very beginning. - Denis On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:52 AM Denis Magda wrote: > Sergey, Ivan, > > Could you please check the

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Sergey, Ivan, Could you please check the questions below? If it's time-consuming to rework continuous queries, then the new mode can become available in the experimental state and should not let register continuous queries to avoid potential deadlocks. Overall, this design gap in continuous

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Ivan, Sergey, How much effort should we put to resolve the issue with continuous queries? Are you working on that issue actively? Let's try to guess what would be the ETA. - Denis On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 3:55 AM Ivan Bessonov wrote: > Hello, > > Sorry for the delay. Sergey Chugunov

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

> Is that OK? We shouldn’t add any code that is broke some existing, widely used feature. Let’s fix it before the merge. > 10 июня 2020 г., в 13:54, Ivan Bessonov написал(а): > > Hello, > > Sorry for the delay. Sergey Chugunov (sergey.chugu...@gmail.com) just > replied > to the main

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hello, Sorry for the delay. Sergey Chugunov (sergey.chugu...@gmail.com) just replied to the main conversation about "communication via discovery" [1]. We work on it together and recently have found one hard-to-fix scenario, detailed description is provided in Sergey's reply. In short, July 10th

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hi, Indeed, the tracing feature is almost ready. Discovery, communication and transactions tracing will be introduced, as well as an option to configure tracing in runtime. Right now we are working on final performance optimizations, but it's very likely that we'll complete this activity before

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hi folks, The timelines proposed by Alex Plekhanov sounds reasonable to me. I'd like only to hear inputs of @Ivan Rakov , who is about to finish with the tracing support, and @Ivan Bessonov , who is fixing a serious limitation for K8 deployments [1]. Most likely, both features will be ready by

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

+1 for initial dates, RM candidate, need June to finish and test features Model export/import for ML and a fewminor fixes ср, 3 июн. 2020 г., 18:05 Sergey Antonov : > Cluster read-only mode and new cluster state change API. > > ср, 3 июн. 2020 г. в 16:10, Ilya Kasnacheev : > > > Hello! > > > >

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Cluster read-only mode and new cluster state change API. ср, 3 июн. 2020 г. в 16:10, Ilya Kasnacheev : > Hello! > > Can you please clarify what is the scope of 2.9 release? > > I have a feeling that we don't really have any big features in the current > 2.9 code base. No Calcite, etc. > > So I'm

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Ilya, I've assumed that the next 2.10 release will start in August, so folks can commit their changes without a rush. Another option, everyone can ask in the current thread to wait for their changes :-) On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 17:29, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote: > > Hello! > > I think we should have at

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Hello! I think we should have at least a month before code freeze. People may have code planned for commit and we don't want to rush them and commit sub-optimal code. Otherwise, +1. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev ср, 3 июн. 2020 г. в 17:24, Maxim Muzafarov : > +1 to start release and Alexey

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

+1 to start release and Alexey Plekhanov as a release manager. Alexey, can you clarify why we need a month for scope and code freeze phases? What should we wait for? Maybe I'm missing something, but the scope for the release already exists. So, I'd like to suggest the following dates: Code

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

+1 To start release process for 2.9 +1 For Alexey Plekhanov as a release manager. > 3 июня 2020 г., в 16:34, Alex Plehanov написал(а): > > Ilya, > > We already have a lot of features implemented in the master branch, but not > released (perhaps not so big as Calcite, but still useful), some of

Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]

Ilya, We already have a lot of features implemented in the master branch, but not released (perhaps not so big as Calcite, but still useful), some of them already mentioned in the previous thread: - Sandbox for user-defined code - .NET: Native Near Cache - TDE - Phase-2. Master key rotation -

  1   2   >