Hello!
I have fixed nightly and release builds. They should now build
apache-ignite-slim. Please contact me if that does not happen.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
ср, 17 июн. 2020 г. в 17:00, Ilya Kasnacheev :
> Hello!
>
> I have just merged slim binary release to master.
>
> I will now try to
Hello!
I have just merged slim binary release to master.
I will now try to tweak nightly builds TC suite to build this package also.
It may be broken for some brief period of time.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
вт, 10 мар. 2020 г. в 18:24, Ilya Kasnacheev :
> Hello!
>
> I understand that
Hello!
I understand that procedures are courtesy Apache Ignite, but I assume that
you went through them and can now repeat them reproducibly.
Thank you!
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
вт, 10 мар. 2020 г. в 18:12, Maxim Muzafarov :
> Ilya,
>
> It is not "mine" generic release procedures they are "ours"
Ilya,
It is not "mine" generic release procedures they are "ours" :-)
I've created the issue [1] based on current discussion thread.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12765
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 13:31, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> It is currently included.
>
> Maxim,
Hello!
It is currently included.
Maxim, can you prepare a slim release package based on your generic release
procedures? We could take a look at it and then perhaps add it to downloads
page officially.
What do you think?
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
пт, 6 мар. 2020 г. в 20:48, Maxim
Ilya,
`ignite-compress` is necessary for `wal page snapshot compression` [1]
which in turn shows very good performance results. So, I suppose, it's
better to include it to the "slim" binary.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11336
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 at 13:31, Ilya Kasnacheev
Hello!
I added these because they are infrastructural to Ignite, as opposed to
integrations. They are also both very slim.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
пт, 6 мар. 2020 г. в 13:25, Stephen Darlington <
stephen.darling...@gridgain.com>:
> Why ignite-jta and ignite-urideploy? Anecdotally at
Why ignite-jta and ignite-urideploy? Anecdotally at least, I know very few
people who use either.
> On 6 Mar 2020, at 11:09, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> Re-posting from *[DISCUSSION] Release Apache Ignite 2.8.0 RC1*
>
> I have prepared assemblies for Apache Ignite slim packaging:
Hello!
Re-posting from *[DISCUSSION] Release Apache Ignite 2.8.0 RC1*
I have prepared assemblies for Apache Ignite slim packaging:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-slim
It is based on ignite-2.8
You can build it with mvn initialize -Prelease,lgpl -Dignite.edition=apache-
Alex, could you please list all the modules that will be excluded? It will
help to confirm we haven't dumped anything essential.
-
Denis
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:33 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Got it, sounds good!
> Should we consider the list of modules
Got it, sounds good!
Should we consider the list of modules included in the slim package
finalized?
чт, 16 янв. 2020 г. в 13:13, Igor Sapego :
> Alexey, if I understand correctly, Ilya does not suggest to pre-built
> binaries, just to ship it with configure script pre-generated, which
> is a
Alexey, if I understand correctly, Ilya does not suggest to pre-built
binaries, just to ship it with configure script pre-generated, which
is a common practice for autotools packages. Building will be still
required for the user, but there will be less requirements and
possible errors during
To me it doesn't really matter if it will be 'slim' or 'lite' :) I would
not name it 'core' because indeed it would be confusing with the core
module name.
Agree that platforms support is useful, so I would keep them as Ilya
suggested. As for the C++ packages pre-build - let's hear out Igor's
I'm +1 for "SLIM" it is a common name in Docker world.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 9:48 PM Petr Ivanov wrote:
> +1 for slim binary
> Plus docker-slim
> Plus RPM / DEB packages modularisation like PHP distribution — with core
> and lots of integrations / modules.
>
> > On 15 Jan 2020, at 17:40, Ilya
+1 for slim binary
Plus docker-slim
Plus RPM / DEB packages modularisation like PHP distribution — with core and
lots of integrations / modules.
> On 15 Jan 2020, at 17:40, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> I think we should name it "core" since we already have ignite-core and it
> will
Hello!
I think we should name it "core" since we already have ignite-core and it
will be confusing. Maybe we should go full 00s and call it "lite"?
I also think we should keep both .Net and C++. .Net is runnable out of box
which is awesome, and C++ needs building but it is rather small in source
Alex,
I'm on your end and support the proposal. Could you also clarify if you
suggest we keeping or removing C++ and .NET thick clients?
Speaking of the naming, how about titling such packages as 'core' instead
of 'slim', i.e., 'apache-ignite-core-{version}'?
-
Denis
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at
Hello!
Pavel, I believe these JARs are fully covered by the list of modules
specified above.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 14:50, Pavel Tupitsyn :
> I like the idea, current distribution is certainly too big.
>
> Here is a list of jar files we include in NuGet package:
>
Hello!
This is a reasonable idea.
I think we should also drop benchmarks/ directory from that build, it's 60M
of (potentially vulnerable) JARs that are not needed by an average
developer's use cases.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 13:10, Alexey Goncharuk :
> Igniters,
>
>
19 matches
Mail list logo
