Val, > Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear picture on > option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1.
For a moment I felt that the proposal is pushed. Let's not do so. The subject is very important, years impact I suppose. And the best way here is to reach absolute consensus. Without tight timelines so far. In case if we fail with consensus we can arrange formal voting. 2021-09-29 14:34 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>: > I am watching how Apache Ignite does evolve for over a 3 years already and > see that such hidden (almost no Open Source Community points could be > achieved for refactoring and addressing something that is not directly > project's source executable code) issues drown under constant pressure of > new features and releases. > > I have never created issues for Maven build refactoring (for instanced) > because I understand that 1) it is almost impossible for current tech debt > already accumulated and 2) to won't be welcomed by community because of > indirect relationship to main project's goals. > Considering other parts, please, note [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] > and many many more issues that have no separate ticket. > > My point — such technical debt is overwhelming and will be never ever > approached. > That is one of the reasons why Ignite 3 being built from scratch, having in > mind all mistakes we've already made and lots of errors we will never do > just because there would be no legacy basic for that. > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7190 > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7326 > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7672 > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8496 > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9866 > [6] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10600 > [7] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10683 > [8] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10696 > > > > > >> On 29 Sep 2021, at 14:14, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade? >> >> I’m not aware of the issues. >> Can you, please, send a tickets or description of existing issues? >> Anyway, it seems change of build tool can be done at any time we want >> >>> — issues related to run scripts? >>> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts? >> >> I’m not aware of those too. >> Can you point to then, please? >> >>> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too? >> >> Yes, from my point of view. >> >>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 14:03, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> написал(а): >>> >>> And what about: >>> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade? >>> — issues related to run scripts? >>> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts? >>> >>> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too? >>> >>>> On 29 Sep 2021, at 13:47, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt >>>>> addressing >>>> >>>> Yes, of course. >>>> >>>> My vision was the following (from the bird eye): >>>> >>>> - 2.20 - removals of LOCAL caches, MVCC and other abandoned features. >>>> (User API doesn’t change). >>>> - 2.30 - replace static XML configuration with the new dynamic >>>> approach. >>>> - 2.40 - replace H2 SQL engine with the Calcite >>>> >>>> etc. >>>> >>>> Versions depends on feature readiness. >>>> >>>> Anyway, I step back with the initial Ignite3 development, because, don’t >>>> want to interfere the progress. >>>> >>>> Respect to the developers who have courage to develop such complex >>>> things from scratch. >>>> >>>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 12:55, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> >>>>> написал(а): >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I believe that we should improve Ignite evolutionary and not >>>>>> revolutionary. >>>>>> First of all, change user API with the slow improvements step by >>>>>> step. >>>>> >>>>> Nikolay, >>>>> >>>>> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt >>>>> addressing? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 11:43, Ilya Kasnacheev >>>>>>> <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> написал(а): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we go the second route, we can call the field "Generation". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Generation: Ignite 2.x >>>>>>> Generation: Ignite 3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (no new tickets should ever be filed for Ignite 1.x but if they are, >>>>>>> they >>>>>>> should go to the first Generation) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards. >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ср, 29 сент. 2021 г. в 00:33, Valentin Kulichenko < >>>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As for the original topic, we need to come to a solution. Let me >>>>>>>> summarize >>>>>>>> what we've discussed so far. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -PROBLEM- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ignite 3 is the next major version of Apache Ignite. It targets the >>>>>>>> same >>>>>>>> use cases and provides a similar set of features as Ignite 2. At the >>>>>>>> same >>>>>>>> time, Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are *technically* separate projects. >>>>>>>> They are >>>>>>>> developed in different repositories (and therefore are based on >>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>> codebases) and implement different internal architectures. To >>>>>>>> achieve a >>>>>>>> more efficient development process, we need to create a clear >>>>>>>> separation >>>>>>>> between 2.x and 3.x within *development resources* (Jira and >>>>>>>> Confluence). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Create a separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite 3 >>>>>>>> (initial suggestion). >>>>>>>> 2. Add a *mandatory* field in Jira to identify whether a ticket >>>>>>>> belongs to >>>>>>>> 2.x or 3.x. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If we go with #2, there are still several things to figure out: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - What is the name of this field? It needs to be intuitive to anyone >>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>> joins the community. >>>>>>>> - We need to make sure that Ignite 3 tickets are not mapped to 2.x >>>>>>>> versions, and vice versa. Can we restrict this in Jira? Or we will >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> monitor this manually? >>>>>>>> - What do we do with Confluence? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nikolay, Ilya, Denis, and others who opposed the initial suggestion: >>>>>>>> if you >>>>>>>> still prefer the second option, could you please address the points >>>>>>>> above? >>>>>>>> I don't think it can be treated as an actual suggestion until we >>>>>>>> cover >>>>>>>> these details. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear >>>>>>>> picture >>>>>>>> on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Val >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:22 PM Valentin Kulichenko < >>>>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Versioning is a separate topic. We agreed on the current scheme in >>>>>>>>> March >>>>>>>>> [1]. If someone thinks we need to change it, please create a new >>>>>>>>> thread >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> present your suggestions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17ebaad35ca2bd70e716e67683ae7fec9bd97372b6cc57a7e9c81f9d%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Val >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:37 PM Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Seems rational. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But still 2.11.0 and 21.1.0 for the time being will look like >>>>>>>>>> similar or >>>>>>>>>> error in either version... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I mean that Ignite 2.x will continue to use old scheme and Ignite >>>>>>>>>>> 3 >>>>>>>>>>> will be e.g. Ignite 21.1 and so on. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 14:57 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>>>>>>> How will not they clash if version is based only on date? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning >>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme, >>>>>>>> e.g. >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions will >>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> clash. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That name will definitely confuse Jira users. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems most >>>>>>>>>> intuitive >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <saikat.mai...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were to >>>>>>>>>> come >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a name my other suggestion would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite-kernel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel - for the central or most important part of something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compiled for >>>>>>>>>> high >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughput accelerators >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saikat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my >>>>>>>> knowledge). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else >>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technicality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>> really >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>> with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what others think. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dma...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two >>>>>>>> predefined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> needs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disturbs >>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the >>>>>>>> recently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> released >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disturbing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two >>>>>>>>>> separate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects, because they are based on different codebases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>> split >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repo for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared the codebase. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just >>>>>>>>>> transitioned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two different >>>>>>>> tickets. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you correctly >>>>>>>>>> mentioned, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time, >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developed as different projects on the technical level. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely >>>>>>>> orthogonal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket management. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda < >>>>>>>> dma...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a >>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> high-performance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> thus, >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is >>>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, >>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version change in our JIRA. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov < >>>>>>>>>> mmu...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects under >>>>>>>> Ignite's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case when two different projects must have dependent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the development >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero. >>>>>>>>>> However, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values? >>>>>>>> Why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current >>>>>>>>>> features? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 2 >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> honestly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems >>>>>>>> counterproductive >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's >>>>>>>>>> discuss >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called >>>>>>>>>> "Ignite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> values >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nizhi...@apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>> new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> database engine built on completely new architecture. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name. >>>>>>>>>> All is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - source code. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - repository. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - features. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - API. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - road map. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contributors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - release cycle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** you are here *** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - jira >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - confluence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as >>>>>>>>>> "Ignite3" is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another project? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and >>>>>>>> Ignite3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coexists? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov < >>>>>>>>>> dpav...@apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jira >>>>>>>>>> project >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kulichenko < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mr.wei...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two projects >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (that >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments seem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alexpolovt...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending Ignite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear where to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put >>>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kulichenko < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> 3.x >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will coexist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repos, but >>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira >>>>>>>>>> project, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which seems to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.x >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a >>>>>>>>>> new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket, it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> single >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pages >>>>>>>> there. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > -- Best regards, Ivan Pavlukhin
