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

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

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

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,

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=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

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

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

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: >

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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, 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

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

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

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

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

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

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 -

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

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. -

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

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 >

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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: > >

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

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]

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

Sounds good, will do!

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

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]

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

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 : >

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

> 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

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

>> "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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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

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

Hello again! I have prepared a patch that bumps some dependencies to their latest versions: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12540 Please consider its inclusion to 2.8, and provide review if you are positive. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev вт, 31 дек. 2019 г. в 15:54, Ilya

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

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

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

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

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

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]:

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

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 wrote: >

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

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]

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

Igniters, The list of the 2.8 release BLOCKERs at this moment: [1] Default auto-adjust baseline enabled flag calculated incorrectly [Anton Kalashnikov] PATCH AVAILABLE [2] (Amazon S3 Based Discovery) Nodes getting down *[Unassigned] *OPEN [3] Cluster Data Store grid gets Corrupted for Load

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

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

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

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

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

Guys, what we do with control.sh commands? We can't set experimental annotation on those commands. пт, 10 янв. 2020 г., 17:47 Alexey Zinoviev : > Support the idea with the annotation > > пт, 10 янв. 2020 г., 13:11 Вячеслав Коптилин : > > > Hello, > > > > * We can mark cluster read-only API

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

Support the idea with the annotation пт, 10 янв. 2020 г., 13:11 Вячеслав Коптилин : > Hello, > > * 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. > > both approaches look good to

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

Hello, * 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. both approaches look good to me. By the way, I think it would be a good idea to introduce a new annotation - @IgniteExperimental

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

Hello! I think the third option (exclude publicly-accessible API) is preferable. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev пт, 10 янв. 2020 г. в 12:26, Ivan Pavlukhin : > Folks, > > Some thoughts: > * Releasing an API with known fallacies sounds really bad thing to me. > It can have a negative

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Igniters. I’m -1 to include the read-only patch to 2.8. I think we shouldn’t accept any patches to 2.8 except bug fixes for blockers and major issues. Guys, we don’t release Apache Ignite for 13 months! We should focus on the release and make it ASAP. We can’t extend the scope anymore.

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

Hello, Maxim! > This PR [2] doesn't look a very simple +5,517 −2,038, 111 files changed. Yes, PR is huge, but I wrote a lot of new tests and reworked already presented. Changes in product code are minimal - only 30 changed files in /src/main/ part. And most of them are new control.sh commands

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

Agree, that we could plan 2.8.1 for bug-fixing and 2.9 for new major changes and maybe it will help Ivan to decide move it to next releases. Agree that scope is frozen, agree that it makes the release is hard for our release manager. чт, 9 янв. 2020 г. в 19:38, Maxim Muzafarov : > Folks, > > >

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

Folks, Let me remind you that we are working on the 2.8 release branch stabilization currently (please, keep it in mind). Do we have a really STRONG reason for adding such a change [1] to the ignite-2.8 branch? This PR [2] doesn't look a very simple +5,517 −2,038, 111 files changed. Do we have

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

+1 чт, 9 янв. 2020 г. в 18:52, Sergey Antonov : > +1 > > I'm preparing patch for 2.8 branch now. TC Bot visa for 2.8 branch will be > at 13 Jan > > чт, 9 янв. 2020 г., 21:06 Ivan Pavlukhin : > > > +1 > > > > чт, 9 янв. 2020 г. в 16:38, Ivan Rakov : > > > > > > Maxim M. and anyone who is

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

+1 I'm preparing patch for 2.8 branch now. TC Bot visa for 2.8 branch will be at 13 Jan чт, 9 янв. 2020 г., 21:06 Ivan Pavlukhin : > +1 > > чт, 9 янв. 2020 г. в 16:38, Ivan Rakov : > > > > Maxim M. and anyone who is interested, > > > > I suggest to include this fix to 2.8 release: > >

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

+1 чт, 9 янв. 2020 г. в 16:38, Ivan Rakov : > > Maxim M. and anyone who is interested, > > I suggest to include this fix to 2.8 release: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12225 > Basically, it's a result of the following discussion: >

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

Maxim M. and anyone who is interested, I suggest to include this fix to 2.8 release: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12225 Basically, it's a result of the following discussion:

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

Hello! I have ran dependency checker plugin and quote the following: One or more dependencies were identified with known vulnerabilities in ignite-urideploy: One or more dependencies were identified with known vulnerabilities in ignite-spring: One or more dependencies were identified with known

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

Hello! I have checked that on master, and fallback to old behavior does not seem to work for pre-existing clusters: I am starting a cluster with two nodes with pre-existing PDS, and when I start client, which would do setBaselineTopology, I get: Caused by:

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

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 wrote: > Hello! > > I have committed ignite-spring-data_2.2 to ignite-2.8. > > By bumping versisons I mean the

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

Hello. Ivan is right that "baseline auto-adjust" is disabled by default if you start your node on existing PDS. But "baseline auto-adjust" is enabled by default for in-memory cluster due to in-memory nodes also have bound to baseline since 2.8 version. Also, I want to note that after this

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

Hello, "baseline auto-adjust" is disabled by default if you start your node on existing PDS. It's enabled on new clusters only. Existing installations should not be affected by the update. Is that ok? пт, 27 дек. 2019 г. в 14:46, Maxim Muzafarov : > Ilya, > > +1 from my side. > > On Fri, 27

  1   2   >