Re: Great blog about Ignite!

I wrote some, but it was not deep enough, and the authority was not enough. 在 16/3/4 09:39, Dmitriy Setrakyan 写道: Couldn’t agree more. It will be great if more community members would volunteer to write blogs or articles.

[GitHub] ignite pull request: Ignite 2753

GitHub user dkarachentsev opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/537 Ignite 2753 You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/dkarachentsev/ignite ignite-2753 Alternatively you can review and apply

Re: Switching back to review-then-commit process

+1 on Raul’s proposal. -Roman On Friday, March 4, 2016 2:47 AM, Raul Kripalani wrote: I would +1 RTC for a finite set of modules – core, complex or strategic modules – in agreement with the community, e.g. ignite-core, ignite-spark, ignite-hadoop, ignite-indexing,

Re: distributed data types for ML applications

Vladislav, This would be a great contribution. For a feature like this, I would pick 1 ML library and propose the design first. Once the community agrees on the design, you can proceed with the implementation. Does this sound good? D. On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic

Re: Great blog about Ignite!

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:51 PM, 李玉珏@163 <18624049...@163.com> wrote: > Hi： > > Very good, I hope this article can more! > > Srini Penchikala wrote a series of articles on the InfoQ are as follows: > Http://www.infoq.com/articles/apache-spark-introduction >

Re: Beta-releases for particular features.

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote: > How about odd/even releases? > Odd releases will contain new/experimental features. > Even releases - stable/bug fix releases. > I think it will get confusing. Do you know other projects that have the same

Re: Beta-releases for particular features.

How about odd/even releases? Odd releases will contain new/experimental features. Even releases - stable/bug fix releases. On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > > > Roman,

Re: Great blog about Ignite!

Hi： Very good, I hope this article can more! Srini Penchikala wrote a series of articles on the InfoQ are as follows: Http://www.infoq.com/articles/apache-spark-introduction Http://www.infoq.com/articles/apache-spark-sql Http://www.infoq.com/articles/apache-spark-streaming If the Ignite

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-2758) IGNITE_HOME/libs/ignite-aws/aws-java-sdk-1.10.29.jar doesn't contain any classes

Valentin Kulichenko created IGNITE-2758: --- Summary: IGNITE_HOME/libs/ignite-aws/aws-java-sdk-1.10.29.jar doesn't contain any classes Key: IGNITE-2758 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2758

Great blog about Ignite!

https://dzone.com/articles/linking-apache-ignite-and-apache-kafka-for-highly Roman, thanks for putting it together! D.

distributed data types for ML applications

Igniters, is IGNITE-1251 still a thing? If so, I would really like to start working on this one. Best regards, Vladisav

Re: Beta-releases for particular features.

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > Roman, this is not about early and frequent releases, but about special > beta releases. > > I agree with Dmitry and Pavel that we do not need such releases, but need > to mark somehow that feature is experimental: > -

[GitHub] ignite pull request: IGNITE-2747: Replaced mktime and gmtime with ...

GitHub user isapego opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/536 IGNITE-2747: Replaced mktime and gmtime with safe analogues. Merged with ignite-2557. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull

Re: Contributions that are waiting for review

My preference would be Jenkins. Raul, do you know how to set it up? On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Raul Kripalani wrote: > Cool! Do you think you can host it at GridGain? > > Else, we could run it as a Jenkins job in the ASF Jenkins. > > Regards, > > *Raúl Kripalani* > PMC &

Re: Contributions that are waiting for review

Cool! Do you think you can host it at GridGain? Else, we could run it as a Jenkins job in the ASF Jenkins. Regards, *Raúl Kripalani* PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data and Messaging Engineer http://about.me/raulkripalani |

Re: Switching back to review-then-commit process

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Raul Kripalani wrote: > * CTR for contributors for all modules, for obvious reasons (no commit > access ;-)). > Obviously, I meant RTC! *Raúl Kripalani* PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data and Messaging

Re: Switching back to review-then-commit process

+1 on Raul’s proposal, specifically ignite-core should always follow RTC process. On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Raul Kripalani wrote: > I would +1 RTC for a finite set of modules – core, complex or strategic > modules – in agreement with the community, e.g. ignite-core,

Re: Switching back to review-then-commit process

I would +1 RTC for a finite set of modules – core, complex or strategic modules – in agreement with the community, e.g. ignite-core, ignite-spark, ignite-hadoop, ignite-indexing, etc. But it seems counterproductive to impose strict RTC for modules like ignite-kafka, ignite-flume, ignite-twitter,

Re: Switching back to review-then-commit process

+1 (but I hope it's still up to a committer to decide whether a change should need a review or not.) On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > I hate to be religious about anything, but do think that for most of the > functionality, RTC makes sense. > >

[GitHub] ignite pull request: Format miliseconds as they will be 3 digits

GitHub user alpert opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/534 Format miliseconds as they will be 3 digits Fixes #517 You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/alpert/ignite IGNITE-2690 Alternatively

Re: Switching back to review-then-commit process

I hate to be religious about anything, but do think that for most of the functionality, RTC makes sense. On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Raul Kripalani wrote: > I thought we were already on RTC process. > > What do you mean with contributors following this process? > > Raúl. >

Re: IGNITE-2693 - could someone take a look and help me with a quick review

Hello, commented at issue On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Dood@ODDO wrote: > Hello, > > This is my second Ignite ticket and if I understand correctly, it is a > simple fix - I submitted a patch recently, it is only a few lines. Can > someone take a look and see if I am on

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-2757) [Failed test] Test GridTaskCancelSingleNodeSelfTest.testImmediateCancellation fails in rare cases

Andrey Gura created IGNITE-2757: --- Summary: [Failed test] Test GridTaskCancelSingleNodeSelfTest.testImmediateCancellation fails in rare cases Key: IGNITE-2757 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2757

Re: Contributions that are waiting for review

+1 for Raul, great idea. We can also include a column with "days since last update" to see how long each issue has been waiting. I have some experience with JIRA REST API, so maybe I could help with this. On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Raul Kripalani wrote: > How about a

Re: Contributions that are waiting for review

How about a nightly job that fetches all tickets from JIRA which are unresolved and have Patch Available = true, and (1) sends them to the dev ML or (2) posts it in Gitter? Will it help raise awareness and put them on the radar? Raúl. On 2 Mar 2016 20:47, "Denis Magda"

Re: Switching back to review-then-commit process

I thought we were already on RTC process. What do you mean with contributors following this process? Raúl. On 3 Mar 2016 11:54, "Denis Magda" wrote: > Igniters, > > I would propose to switch back to review-then-commit process. This process > has to be followed by both

IGNITE-2693 - could someone take a look and help me with a quick review

Hello, This is my second Ignite ticket and if I understand correctly, it is a simple fix - I submitted a patch recently, it is only a few lines. Can someone take a look and see if I am on the right track or did I completely misunderstand it... :-) Thanks!

Re: Switching back to review-then-commit process

+1 - sounds very reasonable and practical. On 3/3/2016 5:54 AM, Denis Magda wrote: Igniters, I would propose to switch back to review-then-commit process. This process has to be followed by both contributors and committers. There is a reason for this I have in mind. Ignite is a complex

Re: Switching back to review-then-commit process

+1 from me. I could be a maintainer for following modules: visor-console, schema-import-utility, ignite-web-console, scalar. We could even copy-paste rules from Spark wiki to ours. On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > Igniters, > > I would propose to switch

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-2756) StreamVisitorExample returns empty result set

Sergey Kozlov created IGNITE-2756: - Summary: StreamVisitorExample returns empty result set Key: IGNITE-2756 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2756 Project: Ignite Issue Type:

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-2755) Optimize gulp build tasks

Dmitriyff created IGNITE-2755: - Summary: Optimize gulp build tasks Key: IGNITE-2755 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2755 Project: Ignite Issue Type: Sub-task

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-2754) IGFS: Create separate processor for listing remove.

Vladimir Ozerov created IGNITE-2754: --- Summary: IGFS: Create separate processor for listing remove. Key: IGNITE-2754 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2754 Project: Ignite

[GitHub] ignite pull request: IGNITE-2739 .NET: Implemented AffinityKey sup...

GitHub user ptupitsyn opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/533 IGNITE-2739 .NET: Implemented AffinityKey support You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/ptupitsyn/ignite ignite-2739 Alternatively

Re: Beta-releases for particular features.

Roman, this is not about early and frequent releases, but about special beta releases. I agree with Dmitry and Pavel that we do not need such releases, but need to mark somehow that feature is experimental: - add notice to javadocs and readmeio docs (as Dmitry suggested) - add warning output to

Re: Beta-releases for particular features.

I like Vladimir's idea.It is particularly useful when we implement integrations with other systems. Releasing them early and, if needed, oftenly, may attract more users of those systems and give advantages over competitors. -Roman On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 2:01 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan

[GitHub] ignite pull request: IGNTIE-2723 fixed java class input

GitHub user Dmitriyff opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/532 IGNTIE-2723 fixed java class input You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/Dmitriyff/ignite ignite-2723 Alternatively you can review

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-2753) Binary object might be deserialized unexpectedly when cache store is enabled.

Vladimir Ozerov created IGNITE-2753: --- Summary: Binary object might be deserialized unexpectedly when cache store is enabled. Key: IGNITE-2753 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2753