Well, here's the issue with "simple move from private repo". This is a huge chunk of code. And while employees of Gridgain are quite familiar with it (or so I presume), the rest of the community is not. I, for one, don't consider that the fact it has been tested and integrated with AI 2.0 and, effectively, outside of AI 2.0 is a reasonable "go" criteria.
I am sorry that I have to repeat this after 1.5 years after project's graduation from the Incubator. However, I, personally and otherwise, feel like a community process of creating software should be thought through in the spirit of the community, rather than "release dates" or "feature richness". Which means that the community has to be on board with the decisions like this. And "on board" doesn't mean "majority of the votes" as we, fortunately, aren't playing in democracy @apache. Release dates are relevant to an entity, building and selling products. in Apache we're are working on projects, and while releases are important here, they convey a very different meaning. We also have this documented contribution process [1]. Is there a good reason to circumvent it in this particular case? [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-1.CreateGitHubpull-request Thanks, Cos -- Take care, Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622 Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author might be affiliated with at the moment of writing. On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Cos, thanks, > > My view is the following. > > Here is an endeavor to release AI 2.1 with improved DDL, .NET and C++ > capabilities in June (this is discussed in a separate thread). > > It will be much better if the storage can get into that release as well to > make it even more solid. > > As for the stabilization and testing the feature has already been integrated > and perfectly tested with recent AI 2.0 version. This is why, personally, I > don’t see any reason why this can affect the vote or potential release date. > Simply, we just need to move it from the private repo to the ASF one. > > — > Denis > >> On May 17, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Hey guys, >> >> I will try to look at it before the week's end. I wonder what's the >> rush for the vote? The normal development process for any big feature >> is to bring the code to a brunch, run through a stabilization cycle >> and then merge into the mainline. Why are we doing something different >> this time around? >> >> Regards, >> Cos >> -- >> Take care, >> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik >> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622 >> >> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, >> and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author >> might be affiliated with at the moment of writing. >> >> >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: >>> Cos, Roman, >>> >>> Would you have time to look at the donation in the nearest time? It’s useful >>> to hear your feedback before the voting is started. >>> >>> — >>> Denis >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> From: Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> >>> Subject: Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache >>> Ignite) >>> Date: May 15, 2017 at 4:37:43 PM PDT >>> To: dev@ignite.apache.org >>> Reply-To: dev@ignite.apache.org >>> >>> The receipt of the software grant (the persistent store) was acknowledged by >>> Craig Russel. >>> >>> Now, we need to move on with this >>> >>> In the meanwhile, I’ve prepared the IP Clearance page referring to the >>> template below but failed to commit the changes to ASF repo: >>> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html >>> >>> *Roman S.*, *Cos*, could you help me with this by granting karma or >>> committing the form from under your account? >>> >>> >>> Roman, Cos, could you help with this? >>> >>> *Alex G.*, please add Apache 2.0 copyrights to all source files that are >>> going to be donated. Presently there is no copyright at all. >>> >>> Everyone interested please spend some time exploring the store's docs and >>> sources shared in my previous email. If no one has any concerns I will >>> proceed with the donation formalities. >>> >>> — >>> Denis >>> >>> On May 12, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> Folks, >>> >>> The repository with the donation is ready and available for review: >>> https://github.com/agoncharuk/ignite/tree/pds-donate >>> >>> Big and main part of the sources is aggregated in “modules/pds”. The rest, >>> that connects Apache Ignite memory architecture and SQL engine is under >>> “core” and “indexing” modules. Alex Goncharuk should be able to point to >>> specific files or commits if required. >>> >>> Here is a description: >>> * Persistent Store Overview: >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Overview >>> * Persistent Store Internal Design: >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Internal+Design >>> >>> The SGA will be signed and sent on Monday. >>> >>> In the meanwhile, I’ve prepared the IP Clearance page referring to the >>> template below but failed to commit the changes to ASF repo: >>> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html >>> >>> *Roman S.*, *Cos*, could you help me with this by granting karma or >>> committing the form from under your account? >>> >>> — >>> Denis >>> >>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:56 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@boudnik.org> wrote: >>> >>> While no one is suggesting an IP trap laid out in the non-SGA'ed code >>> in this particular case, we don't want to setup a precedent like this. >>> >>> From the overall ASF perspective I +1 what Roman has just said. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -- >>> Take care, >>> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan >>> <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:54PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: >>> >>> >>> Would a standard SGA suffice here? >>> >>> I believe that ASF guidelines suggest that a discussion should happen >>> first. Once the community gets enough information, we will move to a PMC >>> vote. I was under the impression that once the PMC vote passes, then the >>> SGA should be provided. Or does GridGain need to provide a signed SGA >>> >>> right >>> >>> away? >>> >>> >>> That reminds me of that Pelosi's self-inflicted conundrum of "In order >>> to see the bill, we should pass the bill" ;) >>> >>> >>> Haha :) >>> >>> SGA != code. In my view, the code should be provided to the community for a >>> review. But I am struggling to see why should an SGA be signed prior to the >>> community accepting the donation. >>> >>> >>> There's no such thing as SGA without a reference to a code base. >>> >>> Also, as I explained -- as a community member I would refuse to look >>> at the code base that doesn't have a proper licensing attached to it. >>> SGA established this kind of proper licensing. >>> >>> Now, SGA is deinetly not the only way to do so, but it is the easiest >>> and since you'd have to do it anyway the most convenient for the >>> community. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Roman. >>> >>> >>> >>> >
