Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Folks, As far as I see, branch ignite-2.1 contains all necessary commits. Looks like we are ready to start a vote tomorrow as agreed. On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > Cos, > > IMO, If we really want to get a valuable feedback from a wider audience > then

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Cos, IMO, If we really want to get a valuable feedback from a wider audience then in addition to the new version the audience has to be given both a high-level and deep documentation, proper messaging, etc. It will take time to soak in the information and a week might not be enough in general.

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

That's an interesting statement to make, considering the a PMC is legally responsible for the release they are making and voting for. What I believe it would achieve is to give a wider group of our users a chance to get and install the new version and try some of the most prominent features, while

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Vladimir, sounds like a good plan. On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Folks, > > I monitored TeamCity state over several days, as well as "In Progress" > tickets. My observation is that situation gradually improving, number of > failing tests goes

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Folks, I monitored TeamCity state over several days, as well as "In Progress" tickets. My observation is that situation gradually improving, number of failing tests goes down, and most of the tickets in work are already dedicated to stabilization, rather to new development. Provided that release

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Cos, I am not sure what a 7 day vote will accomplish. As we all know, Apache [VOTE] is not about the release quality, but about proper build procedure, release signing, and licensing. I do not see the community needing more time than usual to verify this release. D. On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:14

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Fair enough, I will try to collect more and share with the team. And +1 on the proposed release schedule: considering the complexity of the changes we better have some time to play with the bits. In fact, I'd suggest we give it 7 days for the [VOTE] so people have time to play with the bits.

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Cos, I am not aware of performance degradation in regards to Cassandra. AFAIK there were extensive benchmarking prior to 2.0 release. And in the end 2.0 release had performance not worse than 1.9. If you have more information on the matter, let's discuss it in the separate thread. On Thu, Jul 6,

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Vyacheslav, Denis, 7 July is too abrupt date. Scope of 2.1 is still too broad, and what is more important - persistent store has been merged only several days ago. We need some room for stabilization. I propose the following timeline: 16 July - code freeze 17-21 July - QA 21-24 July - vote and

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Thanks everyone for giving us enough time to take a look into the code and architecture of this new feature. The webinar was certainly quite helpful (thanks Denis!). It seems to be a good time to add the feature into the dot-release, so more users can have a taste of it "officially". I have a

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Yes, I think so. — Denis > On Jul 5, 2017, at 7:48 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur wrote: > > Hi Igniters! > > When code freeze of v.2.1 is planned? > >>> tickets which will not be ready by the end of the week to the next > release. > 7 July? > > 2017-07-04 18:39 GMT+03:00

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Hi Igniters! When code freeze of v.2.1 is planned? >> tickets which will not be ready by the end of the week to the next release. 7 July? 2017-07-04 18:39 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov : > Igniters, > > We have 536 tickets assinged to 2.1 release [1]. I propose to move all

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Igniters, We have 536 tickets assinged to 2.1 release [1]. I propose to move all the tickets which will not be ready by the end of the week to the next release. You may use this report [2], which will show all the issues which are either reported by you or assigned to you (you must be logged in

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Igniters, Persistent store has been merged to master branch! "master-bak" branch was created to keep the state before merge for safety. As release date for 2.1 is mid July, I created "ignite-2.1" branch where we will stabilize the release as usual. Please push features and fixes planned for 2.1

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Igniters, It’s time to refresh this abandoned thread and finally rollout out all the changes appeared in 2.1. In addition, recently donated Persistent Store got the green light [1] to become a part of the master branch (no one asked for extra time to dive into its details) and, personally,

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

IGNITE-5327 Create predefined cache templates for CREATE TABLE command - minor comments left, ETA is Friday. IGNITE-5380 Validate cache QueryEntities in discovery thread - in progress, the meat of code is written, but need to add lots of tests. ETA is Friday. IGNITE-5188 Support AFFINITY KEY

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

1. IGNITE-5386 Inactive mode must be forced on starting up grid with persistence is enabled It is important improvement to fix critical bug IGNITE-5363. Working on it, ETA - tomorrow. 2. IGNITE-5375 New PersistentStoreMetrics, MemoryMetrics interface improvements A lot of

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Compute for C++ - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3355 - merged to master. Best Regards, Igor On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Taras Ledkov wrote: > Folks, > > IGNITE-4922 JDBC Driver: renew thin client based solution: > > On 2.1 the functionality of the new

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Folks, IGNITE-4922 JDBC Driver: renew thin client based solution: On 2.1 the functionality of the new thin client JDBC driver will be between deprecated Ignite thin JDBC and Ignite JDBCv2. 1. The most functions of SQL query (include DML) are implemented and ready for review; 2. The most

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

.NET: * IGNITE-2492 Peer assembly loading - merged * IGNITE-1894 Delegate support in the API via extension methods - postponed to 2.2 (see comments) * IGNITE-4904 DML Delete via LINQ - merged On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:43 PM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Folks, > > We are almost

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Folks, We are almost reached proposed feature-complete date (June 2), Could you please share current status of your major features? On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:51 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > Looks a little tight. Let's hope we can make it. > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Looks a little tight. Let's hope we can make it. On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > Well, let me propose the following milestones for 2.1 release then. > > Code freeze: June 2nd. > Final QA and benchmarking: June 5 - June 8 > Voting: ~ June 9 > Release: ~

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Well, let me propose the following milestones for 2.1 release then. Code freeze: June 2nd. Final QA and benchmarking: June 5 - June 8 Voting: ~ June 9 Release: ~ June 13 Also I heard H2 has to be released once again to support Ignite’s CREATE table command. Think that we should talk to H2 folks

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

As for .NET, I would propose to concentrate on peer deployment (IGNITE-2492) and related stuff, like IGNITE-1894 .NET: Delegate support in the API via extension methods. SQL Dependency does not look important to me, we can reschedule it for later versions. On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:01 PM,

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Vyacheslav, I think it is worth the research, but you should always keep data querying and indexing in mind. For example, I don't see how by-page compression will solve it. On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur wrote: > Dmitriy, > > I'm researching a best way

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Dmitriy, I'm researching a best way for this future. At the moment I found only one way (querying and indexing compatible), this is per-objects-field compression. But there is a good proffit only for long strings or fields with large objects. Maybe it makes sense just to introduce compression

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur wrote: > Denis, > > The described roadmap looks great! > > Additional, I vote for introducing an ability (OOTB) to store objects in a > cache in a compressed form. > This will allow to store more data at the cost of

Re: Apache Ignite 2.1 scope

Denis, The described roadmap looks great! Additional, I vote for introducing an ability (OOTB) to store objects in a cache in a compressed form. This will allow to store more data at the cost of incriasing of CPU utilization. 2017-05-11 4:23 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda : >