Re: Deadlock detection usage

; >>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >> dsetrak...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I would make deadlock-detection into a separate page. This way it will > >> be > >>>> more promi

Re: Distributed joins for JDBC

sql.Statement, so > > 'setDistributedJoins' method can be added there. > > JDBC API already have 'unwrap' method to deal with vendor-specific > > interfaces, code will look like this: > > * IgniteStatement stmt = > > connection.createState

Re: Distributed joins for JDBC

separate task. On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Andrey Gura wrote: > Our JDBC drivers already have connection properties that correspond to > SqlFieldsQuery properties. So we can just add support of this parameter to > connection string parser. > > Corresponding ticket crea

Re: All BinaryObjects created by BinaryObjectBuilder stored at the same partition by default

GE works simply by deserializing newly built object, > > but > > > > it's obviously wrong and is just a workaround rather a solution. > > > > Has anyone come with possible design proposals for this problem's > > > solution? > > > > > > > > Thanks

Re: All BinaryObjects created by BinaryObjectBuilder stored at the same partition by default

>> > >> > > I would not only print warning, but throw exception, if an object > without a > > hashCode ends up on a put or read operation in cache. > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Andrey Gura wrote: > >> > >> > I

Re: IGNITE-3407 HTTP REST: query commands without pageSize failed with NPE

gt; Regards, > Saikat > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/927 > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3407 > -- Andrey Gura GridGain Systems, Inc. www.gridgain.com

Re: Updating Ignite Interpreter Guide on Zeppelin

Hi, Denis. I'll try to fix this situation and notify you and community in this thread. On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > Andrey G., > > As a maintainer of Ignite and Zeppelin Integration please contact Zeppelin > guys asking them to update the following page > https://zeppe

IgniteSemaphore and failoverSafe flag

Hi all! Guys, could somebody explain semantic of failoverSafe flag in IgniteSemaphore. From my point of view the test below should work but it fails: public void testFailoverReleasePermits() throws Exception { Ignite ignite = grid(0); IgniteSemaphore sem = ignite.semaphore("s

Re: IgniteSemaphore and failoverSafe flag

ould be a minor fix, will be ready for 1.8. > > Best regards, > Vladisav > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Andrey Gura wrote: > > > Hi all! > > > > Guys, could somebody explain semantic of failoverSafe flag in &g

Re: Updating Ignite Interpreter Guide on Zeppelin

Hi, all. I've update Ignite interpreter docs in Apache Zeppelin repository. PR: https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1581 If you have some comments please notify. On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Andrey Gura wrote: > Hi, Denis. > > I'll try to fix this situation and notif

Re: Code Review Tool Proposal: Upsource

+1 Great tool. On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn > wrote: > > > Igniters, > > > > We have set up Upsource code review tool at > > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ > > > > I propose to evaluate it and see if it wor

Re: [VOTE] Use Upsource for Code Review

+1 On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > Sergi, > > I don't think we should enforce it. > "Official" means that it will be allowed, linked and described in wiki. > > It is up to contributor and reviewer to use it. > For example, if the changes are small/trivial, creating a r

Re: Apache Ignite 1.8 Release

Vladimir, IGNITE-2968 and IGNITE-2969 introduce deadlock detection for transactions on near caches and for optimistic transactions. I think it should be added to release notes. On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Folks, > > I need to create RELEASE NOTES. Please advise whi

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.8.0 RC1

+1 (non-binding) 6 дек. 2016 г. 1:37 PM пользователь "Alexey Kuznetsov" < akuznet...@apache.org> написал: > +1 (binding) > > Downloaded > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/1.8.0-rc1/ > apache-ignite-1.8.0-src.zip > OK > > >sha1sum -c *.sha1 > apache-ignite-1.8.0-src.zip: OK > > >md5su

Re: Batch DML queries design discussion

Alex, In most cases JdbcQueryTask should be executed locally on client node started by JDBC driver. JdbcQueryTask.QueryResult res = loc ? qryTask.call() : ignite.compute(ignite.cluster().forNodeId(nodeId)).call(qryTask); Is it valid behavior after introducing DML functionality? In cases whe

Re: NullPointerException on ScanQuery

Hi, I've looked at your code. First of all you have races in your code. For example your start two threads and destroy caches before thread is finished and it leads to cache closed error. Moreover, you stops application before any thread finished and it leads to topology changing and NPE. The se

Re: Update ignite version for Camel, Zeppelin, Vert.x and MyBatis

Denis, I'll update Vert.x and Zeppelin dependency versions during this week. On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > Raul K., Andrey G., Roman S., > > Would you mind updating pom files of the external projects [1] Ignite is > integrated with by setting its version to 1.8.0? > > ht

Re: NullPointerException on ScanQuery

Hi, As I wrote already I don't see any race for stable topology. Problems are possible on unstable topology. You can try wait for topology version will be the same on all nodes in cluster and avoid this race. Unfortunately I can't see your code except of example that has some drawbacks mentioned

Re: Update ignite version for Camel, Zeppelin, Vert.x and MyBatis

Vert.x - updated. Zeppelin - PR created and should be merged soon. On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Andrey Gura wrote: > Denis, > > I'll update Vert.x and Zeppelin dependency versions during this week. > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Denis Magda wrote: >> R

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Ignite 1.8.0 Released

Hi all I have a comment about release notes. Transactions deadlock detection was implemented in Apache Ignite 1.7. But this implementation is limited by pessimistic transactions only and doesn't support transactions on near caches. In Apache Ignite 1.8 release implemented deadlock detection that

Re: Apache Ignite 2.5 release

, Pavel Tupitsyn >> wrote: >> >>> IGNITE-8434 merged to master, cherry-picked to ignite-2.5. >>> >>> Thank you, Andrey! >>> >>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:46 PM, Andrey Gura wrote: >>> >>>> Pavel, >>>> >>>

Re: Postpone Apache Ignite 2.5 release to fix baseline topology

ty log messages, which I believe we > already have. > > D. > > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Andrey Gura wrote: > >> Igniters, >> >> I believe BLT is serious usability problem but rush isn't good idea >> because can lead to new bugs. As release manager I

Re: Apache Ignite 2.5 release

Igniters, Almost all issues for Apache Ignite 2.5 release are fixed. Issues that are still in Open state will be moved to 2.6 release. Code freeze for ignite-2.5 branch is planed for tomorrow. Thanks! On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 7:09 PM, Andrey Gura wrote: > Thanks for fast update, Ivan. >

Re: Integration with JHipster

Hi, Ignite already can be used as Spring Cache and Hibernate L2 cache. Only this two options are provided by JHipster. So JHipster documentaton update should be enough. On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 7:09 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > Igniters, > > Jhipster is a very popular Spring Boot + Angular fram

Re: async operation is not fair async

+1 for fair async operations. But I don't like idea use withFairSync() method. We added xxxAsync() methods recently and withAsync() is deprecated. I think we should just make methods are async in nature and provide ability of switching to the old behaviour using flag or property. On Fri, May 11,

Re: Apache Ignite 2.5 release

Igniters, we are ready to start process of releasing Apache Ignite 2.5. So code freeze. No more commits to ignite-2.5 branch. Thanks! On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Andrey Gura wrote: > Igniters, > > Almost all issues for Apache Ignite 2.5 release are fixed. Issues that > are s

Re: supporting different configuration format json,yaml...

Actually sometimes users ask about JSON configuration (e.g. was PR in vertx-ignite project). But it's non trivial task because it will require development of some DSL (or set of DSL's) and will make adding new configuration elements some kind of pain while we should be focused on basic functionalit

Re: Topology-wide notification on critical errors

Ilya, adding of message that will be sent to all other nodes still doesn't make mentioned task easier. You still should understand where to find problem description and what exactly. Only helpful case here is using NoOpFailureHandler because node can just hang but still be in topology so any diag

Re: work with files and directories

Hi, I understand you idea but it just increases dependencies of different component from one that is in general bad practice. We have different components where each one can use different approach for file management. For example page store and WAL have different file IO implementations due to pe

Re: supporting different configuration format json,yaml...

y > > > > > > > nothing to users outside of Java world. > > > > > > > When I see such configs my eyes are filled with bloody tears. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should really consider YAML as our additional > approach > > > to > >

Re: Apache Ignite 2.5 release

ue that may lead to incorrect recovery on node startup is >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8464 which is already in >> >>> PA. >> >>>> I >> >>>> suggest we also include it to 2.5 given that fix improves stabili

[VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.5.0 RC1

Igniters, We've uploaded a 2.5.0 release candidate to https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/2.5.0-rc1/ Git tag name is 2.5.0-rc1 This release includes the following changes: Ignite: * Implemented Zookeeper discovery SPI. * Added Java thin client. * Added continuous queries with transfor

[RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.5.0 Release (RC1)

Igniters, Apache Ignite 2.5.0 release (RC1) has been accepted. 4 "+1" binding votes received: - Alexey Kuznetsov - Denis Magda - Pavel Tupitsyn - Valentin Kulichenko Vote thread: *http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-Ignite-2-5-0-RC1-td30923.html

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.5.0 Release (RC1)

RPM and DEB packages are published to bintray [1] [2] [1] https://bintray.com/apache/ignite-rpm [2] https://bintray.com/apache/ignite-deb On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Andrey Gura wrote: > Igniters, > > Apache Ignite 2.5.0 release (RC1) has been accepted. > > 4 "+1&quo

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.5.0 Release (RC1)

Dmitry, First we should check docker images. Also we are waiting for publishing of artifacts to Maven Central. On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Andrey Gura wrote: >> >> RPM and DEB packages are publis

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.5.0 Release (RC1)

Pavel, Thanks a lot! вт, 29 мая 2018 г., 22:14 Pavel Tupitsyn : > NuGet (.NET) packages pushed: > https://www.nuget.org/packages?q=Apache.Ignite > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:59 PM, Andrey Gura wrote: > >> Dmitry, >> >> First we should check docke

Re: [oss-security] [CVE-2014-0114]: Apache Ignite is vulnerable to existing CVE-2014-0114

Hi, I've looked to the problem and didn't see any problem with BeanUtils. Only module that depends on BeanUtils is Cassandra cache store in order to map POJO to CQL queries. Usages are only on Ignite side with configured Cassandra cache store and can't exploit described vulnerability from my point

Re: Ignite 2.6 emergency release suggestion

Ivan, I agree to include this fixes into AI 2.6 release. Please, feel free to merge. On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 4:08 PM Ivan Rakov wrote: > > Igniters, > > Do we still have chance to extend 2.6 scope? > > I propose to include two more tickets into 2.6: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8

Re: Ignite 2.6 emergency release suggestion

;ve cherry-picked the fixes to ignite-2.6 branch. > > Best Regards, > Ivan Rakov > > On 04.07.2018 16:26, Andrey Gura wrote: > > Ivan, > > > > I agree to include this fixes into AI 2.6 release. Please, feel free to > > merge. > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 4:0

Re: Ignite 2.6 emergency release suggestion

rsion still 2.6.0-SNAPSHOT at master, > It should be changed to 2.7.0-SNAPSHOT since we relocated 2.6 to a special > branch. > > Some issues affecting backward compatibility can not be merged while > version not incremented. > > ср, 4 июл. 2018 г. в 20:59, Andrey Gura : > >

Re: Ignite 2.6 emergency release suggestion

er version should be > > incremented. > > > > Or version increase is planned right after 2.6 release? > > > > > > > > > On 9 Jul 2018, at 16:32, Andrey Gura wrote: > > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > while version number is fr

Re: Automatic Handling of Long Stop-the-World Pauses

Denis, we have LongJVMPauseDetector. But it is Java thread that will be in safe-point during stop-the-world pause and therefore will not make any progress. So only external process can detect SW pause. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:34 PM Denis Magda wrote: > > Pavel, > > We already can monitor the st

[VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.6.0 RC1

Igniters, We've uploaded a 2.6.0 release candidate to https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/2.6.0-rc1/ Git tag name is 2.6.0-rc1. This release includes the following changes: Ignite: * Fixed incorrect calculation of client affinity assignment with baseline. * Fixed incorrect calculation

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.6.0 RC1

ts own release notes. > > D. > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Andrey Gura wrote: > > > Igniters, > > > > We've uploaded a 2.6.0 release candidate to > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/2.6.0-rc1/ > > > > Git tag name is

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.6.0 RC1

Sorry, You could check it using provided links. ср, 11 июл. 2018 г., 5:41 Andrey Gura : > Dmitry, > > It is emergency release so we have very short list of changes. You could > check it using provided links. > > > ср, 11 июл. 2018 г., 3:01 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > >&g

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.6.0 RC1

+1 (binding) Checked: - build from sources; - artifacts' hashes; - examples. On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:06 PM Dmitry Pavlov wrote: > > Anton, I totally agree it is needed, but not sure I'll have free time to do > it soon. I will keep community posted. > > ср, 11 июл. 2018 г. в 17:01, Anton Vino

[RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.6.0 Release (RC1)

Igniters, Apache Ignite 2.6.0 release (RC1) has been accepted. 5 "+1" binding votes received: - Alexey Goncharuk - Alexey Kuznetsov - Andrey Gura - Anton Vinogradov - Denis Magda Vote thread: *http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-Ignite-2-6-0-RC1-td

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.6.0 Release (RC1)

Dmitry, I'm updating the site at this moment. Could somebody publish 2.6 documentation on readme.io site? On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 5:38 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > Is there a reason why 2.6 has not been uploaded to the website yet? > > D. > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.6.0 Release (RC1)

Pavel, could you please assist with NuGet packages? On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 6:46 PM Andrey Gura wrote: > > Dmitry, > > I'm updating the site at this moment. Could somebody publish 2.6 > documentation on readme.io site? > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 5:38 PM Dmitriy Setrakya

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.6.0 Release (RC1)

> Denis > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 8:46 AM Andrey Gura wrote: > > > Dmitry, > > > > I'm updating the site at this moment. Could somebody publish 2.6 > > documentation on readme.io site? > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 5:38 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan > &g

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.6.0 Release (RC1)

t I have linked. Is there anything I > > should > > > >> pay > > > >>>>> attention to? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:05 PM Petr Ivanov > > > >>>> wrote: &

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Ignite 2.6.0 Released

fixes several critical issues and brings in some improvements: https://ignite.apache.org/releases/2.6.0/release_notes.html Download the latest Ignite version from here: https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi Please let us know [2] if you encounter any problems. Regards, Andrey Gura on behalf of

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.6.0 Release (RC1)

Latest version is updated. Thanks! On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:50 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > Andrey Gura, can you please update it? > > D. > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 6:34 AM, Dmitry Pavlov > wrote: > > > Hi Ilya, > > > > Thank you for noticing th

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7: scope, time and release manager

Hi, I believe we can just move this tickets to the next version. On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:35 AM Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > Hello, Igniters. > > We have 3 not assigned tickets for a 2.7 which is labeled "Important". > Who can pick up this tickets? > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE

Re: ConcurrentLinkedHashMap works incorrectly after clear()

Stas, SkipList implementation offers O(log n) for get/put/contains operations while CLHM - O(1). So it is suitable for small data sets but will have serious performance impact for the big ones. However, it seems it's time for right choice: correctness or performance. The answer seems obvious ) On

Re: Critical worker threads liveness checking drawbacks

Hi, I agree with Yakov that we can provide some option that manage worker liveness checker behavior in case of observing that some worker is blocked too long. At least it will some workaround for cases when node fails is too annoying. Backups count threshold sounds good but I don't understand ho

Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release

Nikolay, since we talk about scope freeze all you need now just create ignite-2.7 branch. We still can have tickets targeted to 2.7 release in progress. So you shouldn't move tickets to 2.8 because they can be targeted to 2.7 intentionally and will be merged to master and ignite-2.7 branches. On W

Re: Time to drop Java 7?

Good news for everyone ) 30 нояб. 2017 г. 11:29 PM пользователь "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < dsetrak...@apache.org> написал: > +1 > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Denis Magda wrote: > > > Igniters, > > > > Considering that we’re going to support Java 9 in the next release and > > hitting several l

Re: Time and scope for Apache Ignite 2.4

Hi, I'm working on WAL optimizations that improve performance significantly [1]. I believe it's important task and should be included in Apache Ignite 2.4 release. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6339 On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Denis Magda wrote: > Igniters, > > Basing on

Re: Time and scope for Apache Ignite 2.4

Hi, I've just updated the issue. Please take a look. On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Andrey Gura wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm working on WAL optimizations that improve performance >> significantl

Re: Transaction classes naming

Completely agree. Also locks acquisition related futures should be renamed. On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 8:21 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV wrote: > > for renaming +1 > >> 21 дек. 2017 г., в 5:25, Dmitriy Setrakyan >> написал(а): >> >> Will this renaming introduce any issues with supporting previous version

Re: IGNITE-7107 Apache Ignite RPM packages

Hi, I think we should provide the same default configuration for all binary builds. From my point of view RPM/DEB/etc packages should use default configuration file like to standard binary release. On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote: > Hello Igniters! > > What's your take on

Re: IGNITE-7107 Apache Ignite RPM packages

;>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3171> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 25 Dec 2017, at 18:57, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: >>>>> >>>>> PDS and discovery settings are unrelated to the packaging task. >>>

Re: Java 9 support

Andrey, performance testing is in progress. The first, there are no significant difference in performance on Java 8. But it would be great to test performance on Java 9 also. On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Andrey Kuznetsov wrote: > Thanks, Petr. > > I heard of some activity related to performa

Re: IGNITE-7135 needs review

Alexandr, I've merged your changes to master branch. Thanks for contribution! On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Alexandr Kuramshin wrote: > Ticket was assigned to me until the patch available state has been reached. > > Till now no one committer take responsibility to review and merge the PR. > >

Re: Spring3 support

Guys, I doubt that we should include spring-3 module in Apache Ignite 2.4 because we will drop Java 7 support. Only Spring Framework 4.x supports Java 8 without any limitations. Thoughts? On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:01 PM, Michael Cherkasov wrote: > Hi all, > > as I can see there are no objection

Re: cache operation failed after transaction rolled back due to deadlock

It seems that problem isn't related with deadlock detection and should be reproducible when deadlock detection disabled. Anyway it sounds like a bug. Could you please file a ticket and provide minimal reproducer? 19 янв. 2018 г. 3:55 PM пользователь "ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV" < alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>

Re: IGNITE-6005 is ready for review

I'll merge it if there are no any objections. But, the first, I'll run TC once again. 21 февр. 2018 г. 12:28 AM пользователь "Dmitry Pavlov" < dpavlov@gmail.com> написал: > Hi Igniters, > > It seems this issue review process hang up. > > Andrey Gura h

Re: IGNITE-6005 is ready for review

> Hello, Andrey. >> >> Do you run TC by yourself, or I as patch contributor should do it? >> >> В Ср, 21/02/2018 в 11:42 +0300, Andrey Gura пишет: >> > I'll merge it if there are no any objections. But, the first, I'll run >> TC once again.

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.4.0 RC1

+1 Checked compilation under Java 8/9, examples, binaries checksums. On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 6:45 PM, Yury Babak wrote: > +1 > > Checked Ignite ML: sources and binaries. > > Regards, > Yury > > > > -- > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/

IEP-14: Ignite failures handling (Discussion)

Igniters! We are working on proposal described in IEP-14 Ignite failures handling [1] and it's time to discuss it with community (although it was necessary to do this before). Most important question: what should be default behaviour in case of failure? There are 4 actions: 1. Restart JVM proces

Re: IEP-14: Ignite failures handling (Discussion)

Hi! Thank you all for your opinions and ideas! While reading the thread I made two important conclusions: 1. Proposed API should be changed because possible actions enumeration is bad idea. More clean and simple design should allow user provide failure handler implementation with custom logic of

Re: IEP-14: Ignite failures handling (Discussion)

Yakov, DiscoveryWorker is critical worker itself and could be terminated or blocked by user provided listener. So specific abstraction for failure handling is more robust way to solve the problem because it doesn't dependent on other components. On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Yakov Zhdanov wro

Re: What's about releasing Ignite 2.5 a bit earlier?

Igniters, I'm ready to take care of Apache Ignite 2.5 release. I've started preparing wiki pages. There are many fixes in master branch so I think that we should limit scope of the release soon (e.g. next week) because stabilization and QA activities will also require time. I'll keep the communit

Re: Ignite download page

+1 for the latest release and previous releases section. IMO, last three releases section doesn't make sense (Why three?). ср, 28 мар. 2018 г., 10:45 Petr Ivanov : > +1 > > We can even make something like Maven download page [1]: point focus on > latest version and add “Previous Releases” sectio

Re: IGNITE-6827 - Review needed.

Guys, I've looked at IGNITE-6827 implementation and have comment. I think that rollbackOnTopologyChangeTimeout parameter isn't related with implemented functionality. It's responsibility of PME to rollback transactions that blocks exchange, so rollbackOnTopologyChangeTimeout should be configured f

Re: Breaking change in JDBC connection string format

Hi, We've been solve this problem during JDBC2 driver implementation. And I don't know any complains about connection string format. Why we can just use the same approach? [1] [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1250?focusedCommentId=14706511&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.is

Re: IGNITE-6827 - Review needed.

Alexey, could you please create code review in Upsource? The PR is huge and it would be great to have an ability to discuss changes in more convenient way. Thanks. On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > I looked into the ticket and do not understand this property > name: Ro

Re: Breaking change in JDBC connection string format

client. > > As for the breaking changes, if update the delimiter for the next driver > version and make sure that version understands 2 delimiters for some time > (& and the new one), then this would be ideal and not disrupting. > > -- > Denis > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018

Re: abbrevation rules plugin

Both prefixes "Grid" and "Ignite" in class names are redundant for most cases. So there is no any rules for this. вт, 3 апр. 2018 г., 19:28 Vyacheslav Daradur : > Hi, Igniters! > > I got into the task [1] in agreement with Dmitry. > > I’ve prepared the PR [2] with following changes: > - added Apa

Apache Ignite 2.5 release

Igniters, It's time to create branch for upcoming Apache Ignite 2.5 release in order to start stabilization process. If there are no any objections I'll create ignite-2.5 branch tomorrow. Also please check JIRA issues assigned to you and move it to the next version if this issues shouldn't be in

Re: Apache Ignite 2.5 release

Apr 4, 2018 at 9:11 PM, Andrey Gura wrote: > Igniters, > > It's time to create branch for upcoming Apache Ignite 2.5 release in > order to start stabilization process. > > If there are no any objections I'll create ignite-2.5 branch tomorrow. > > Also please check JIR

Re: Apache Ignite 2.5 release

Anton, all is under control. Branches will be compared and changes that should be included to AI 2.5 will be identified. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:19 PM, Petr Ivanov wrote: > Possibly it is Andrey Gura — he initiated this thread and created > corresponding branch. > > >> On

Re: GA Grid: Can IGNITE-8242 be include in 2.5 release?

Hi, Yury, there is no code/scope freeze. So feel free to merge your tickets. Thanks. On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 1:21 AM, Denis Magda wrote: > Those are isolated changes that shouldn't affect the rest of the platform. > > Andrey G., please approve the merge. I think it's fine to do. > > -- > Denis

Re: Apache Ignite 2.5 release

8 at 11:30 AM, Anton Vinogradov wrote: > Andrey, thanks for control :) > > So, You'll fix broken versions eventually? > > BTW, I don't think it's a good idea to merge issues with fix version 2.5 to > ignite-2.5. Good way is to fix version to 2.6 instead. > > 2018-0

Re: Apache Ignite 2.5 release

gt; > Andrey, thanks for control :) >> > > >> > > So, You'll fix broken versions eventually? >> > > >> > > BTW, I don't think it's a good idea to merge issues with fix version >> 2.5 >> > to >> > > ignite-2.

Re: Apache Ignite 2.5 release

394 > > Best Regards, > Igor > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:19 PM, Andrey Gura wrote: > >> Pavel, >> >> looks like painful problem. I've targeted it to 2.5 release. >> >> Thanks! >> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 a

Re: Apache Ignite 2.5 release

Hi there! >From my point of view it is blocker too. Targeted to 2.5 release. Thanks, Ivan! пт, 27 апр. 2018 г., 2:29 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 6:38 AM, Ivan Rakov wrote: > > > Folks, > > > > I have a fix for a critical issue related to WAL compaction: > > https://issues.apa

Re: Apache Ignite 2.5 release

Eduard, Pavel, mentioned bugs are good candidates for including to release. Targeted to 2.5. Thanks! On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Pavel Kovalenko wrote: > Igniters, > > I would like to add this issue > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8405 to 2.5 scope. > > > 2018-04-27 16:59 G

Re: Apache Ignite 2.5 release

Of course I meant bug fixes, not bugs :) On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 9:28 PM, Andrey Gura wrote: > Eduard, Pavel, > > mentioned bugs are good candidates for including to release. > > Targeted to 2.5. > > Thanks! > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Pavel Kovalenko wrote:

Re: Apache Ignite 2.5 release

> > expect it is too risky. >> > > >> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8421 >> > > >> > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 6:08 PM Alexei Scherbakov < >> > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >

Re: Apache Ignite 2.5 release

-IGNITE-8439-td30161.html > > and 1 proposal here related to ML: > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Ignite-2-5-release-td28927i20.html#a30155 > but here Yuriy Babak probably should share his opinion. > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > >

Re: Apache Ignite 2.5 release: Can IGNITE-8041 be included?

Turik, Apache Ignite 2.5 is in scope freeze at this moment. Only critical and early targeted to 2.5 issue can be included to the release. But in this case only examples are affected by your changes. So if Yury doesn't have any objections we can include this change also. On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 1:

Re: Hi... can we squeeze this into 2.5 ...https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8439

/ Bcc’ed user-list and added dev-list. > > 2.5 scope is already frozen, and I assume this isn’t a kind of issue that > would be added at this point. > > Andrey Gura, could you please comment on that? > > Thanks, > Stan > > From: Paul Anderson > Sent: 7 мая 2018 г. 10

Re: Apache Ignite 2.5 release

> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Andrey Gura wrote: >> >> Ivan, >> >> ok, targeted to 2.5. Thanks! >> >> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Dmitry Pavlov >> wrote: >> > Thank you, Andrey, >> > >> > I saw 1 more proposal in separ

Re: Apache Ignite 2.5 release

96 >> to 1.4.197 and re-run tests. Can we target it to 2.5 release? >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4150 >> >> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Andrey Gura wrote: >> >> > Ivan, >> > >> > ok, targeted to 2.5. Thanks! &g

Re: Postpone Apache Ignite 2.5 release to fix baseline topology

Igniters, I believe BLT is serious usability problem but rush isn't good idea because can lead to new bugs. As release manager I think that we should move BLT fix to Apache Ignite 2.6 release and focus on issues included to the AI 2.5 release scope. I also want inform you that code freeze is plann

Re: vert.x integration

ion goes to Andrey Gura. > > Andrey, I remember you have been working on Vert.x integration and got > stuck on one bug in Ignite that had to be fixed before hand. Was that bug > fixed by now? Can you let us know how close we are in your opinion to > completing this integration? >

Re: vert.x integration

issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1079 > > Would be nice if folks in the community gave an update on these. > > Thanks, > D. > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Andrey Gura wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I want to run Vert.x HA tests with the latest changes

Re: vert.x integration

king at the vert.x integration and there are 3 open tickets: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1079 > > Andrey Gura, these tickets are assigned to you, so I suspect you are > working on them. Can you please let us know if you need any help? > > Also, if any of the t

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >