Hello, Petr.

I want to make ignite-2.7 branch today.
And execute release procedure based on this branch.

However, ignite-2.7 branch will be copy of master until code freeze date.

В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:13 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет:
> Will it be just a test or there is already ignite-2.7 branch?
> 
> Fabric removal related TC modifications are not ready yet, and code is not in 
> master.
> 
> 
> 
> > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:07, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Hello, Igniters.
> > 
> > I want to start and release procedures and make an RC1 build.
> > 
> > It has a 2 intention:
> > 
> > 1. I want to walk through all release steps to make sure they all works for 
> > me.
> > So I will be fully ready on release date.
> > 
> > 2. We have updated some dependencies in 2.7 and we need to make sure binary 
> > build is still workable.
> > 
> > Any objections?
> > 
> > 
> > В Пт, 14/09/2018 в 18:52 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет:
> > > We already have all the mechanics in place to work with properties - we 
> > > use
> > > ignite.build and ignite.revision from ignite.properties which are adjusted
> > > during the build in the binary package.
> > > 
> > > Should I create the ticket if there are no objections?
> > > 
> > > пт, 14 сент. 2018 г. в 13:22, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>:
> > > 
> > > > Hello!
> > > > 
> > > > So now there's an issue that this script makes source change after every
> > > > build, show up in git status.
> > > > 
> > > > What we could do to it:
> > > > - Commit the changes after the build, once. In hopes that it won't 
> > > > change
> > > > very often. With benefit that we could do that right now, before the 
> > > > code
> > > > freeze.
> > > > - Move these values to a properties file from both pom.xml and
> > > > IgniteProvider.java. Any problems with this approach? We'll just read 
> > > > them
> > > > from classpath properties file.
> > > > - Update the links in the file once and remove them from build process. 
> > > > Why
> > > > were they added to build process in the first place - to make them
> > > > configurable during build?
> > > > 
> > > > Regards,
> > > > --
> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > вт, 11 сент. 2018 г. в 5:53, Roman Shtykh <rsht...@yahoo.com>:
> > > > 
> > > > > Ilya,
> > > > > 
> > > > > The "latest" version is the default, and resolved by
> > > > > https://ignite.apache.org/latest which is used by our web site when a
> > > > > user download the latest Ignite version. And I think this is the
> > > > 
> > > > authority
> > > > > to judge of the latest official release (pom.xml you suggest can have
> > > > > SNAPSHOTs etc.).
> > > > > Also, as I explained during our review sessions, ignite-mesos-2.6.0 
> > > > > is a
> > > > > driver and doesn't mean you need to have Ignite 2.6.0. User can run 
> > > > > any
> > > > > version of Ignite he/she specifies. By default, it's "latest" but a 
> > > > > user
> > > > > can specify any version needed, even from a non-archive URL.
> > > > > 
> > > > > In short, what we have now
> > > > > 1. mesos driver (ignite-mesos-x.x.x) will use "latest" version by 
> > > > > default
> > > > > -> it will try to resolve the latest officially releases version of
> > > > 
> > > > Apache
> > > > > Ignite, find the closest mirror and download Ignite in a minute. If 
> > > > > the
> > > > > version resolution fails, we fall back to the slow apache archive (as 
> > > > > you
> > > > > suggest; in my opinion we better fail-fast instead of waiting for 
> > > > > hours
> > > > 
> > > > to
> > > > > download, so the user can choose another download option (3))
> > > > > 2. If the user specifies the version explicitly, it goes to the slow
> > > > > apache archive.
> > > > > 3. The user can put ignite zip file on his/her http server and provide
> > > > 
> > > > the
> > > > > URL as a parameter to the driver, if options 1 and 2 don't work.
> > > > > 
> > > > > As you see, there are 3 options. And I just fix the 1st one with
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9388 and don't change the
> > > > > original logic (which I find reasonable) documented on our site -- I
> > > > 
> > > > don't
> > > > > see how it blocks anything.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Roman Shtykh
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Monday, September 10, 2018, 6:16:15 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hello!
> > > > > 
> > > > > There's still two issues with the submission.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The first one is that we're downloading "latest" version from 
> > > > > preferred
> > > > > mirror but a specified version, such as "2.6", we're also going to
> > > > 
> > > > download
> > > > > from "slow" archive.apache.org/dist.
> > > > > That's a great limitation for this change, since most real 
> > > > > deployments of
> > > > > Apache Ignite will have their Ignite version pegged to a specific
> > > > 
> > > > release.
> > > > > But in this case there's no win in download speed.
> > > > > *In my opinion it is a blocker.*
> > > > > 
> > > > > The second one is that we can't download anything when we failed to
> > > > > resolve "latest". My idea is that we should try and download last 
> > > > > known
> > > > > version in this case, which can be pushed to source from pom.xml, as 
> > > > > we
> > > > > already do with URLs. So if you could not resolve "latest" you will
> > > > > download 2.7.0.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Buuut, maybe it's not necessary, maybe we should just *discourage
> > > > > "latest"*, which is in my opinion almost always a bad idea.
> > > > > 
> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > вс, 9 сент. 2018 г. в 5:47, Roman Shtykh <rsht...@yahoo.com>:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi Ilya,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sorry, missed that.
> > > > > Added now.
> > > > > 
> > > > > --
> > > > > Roman Shtykh
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thursday, September 6, 2018, 6:16:58 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hello!
> > > > > 
> > > > > The last of my requests still standing is that we should fall-back to
> > > > > single URL download in case of error with 'latest' version. Everything
> > > > 
> > > > else
> > > > > looks good to me.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Can we do that? I'm really worried that Apache API will go sour.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > чт, 6 сент. 2018 г. в 8:56, Roman Shtykh <rsht...@yahoo.com>:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi Ilya,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks again.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1) Done.
> > > > > 2) Used catch() for latest version.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please see my comments on github.
> > > > > --
> > > > > Roman Shtykh
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Wednesday, September 5, 2018, 11:30:10 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev 
> > > > > <
> > > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hello!
> > > > > 
> > > > > I've left a new wave of replies.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Basically, 1) let's keep DOWNLOAD_URL_PATTERN string value inlined so
> > > > > that it will work even if build process is broken (would be useful for
> > > > 
> > > > e.g.
> > > > > developing out of IDE)
> > > > > And also I urge you to catch() around new fragile Apache JSON API
> > > > > resolving, and download the 'current' version instead, as defined by
> > > > > ignite-mesos version.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is because this module is not under continuouos scrutiny so extra
> > > > > care should be applied.
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > вт, 4 сент. 2018 г. в 13:42, Roman Shtykh <rsht...@yahoo.com>:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks, Ilya!
> > > > > I will check your comments, and discuss it at JIRA.
> > > > > 
> > > > > --
> > > > > Roman Shtykh
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Tuesday, September 4, 2018, 7:17:53 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hello!
> > > > > 
> > > > > IGNITE-9408 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9408> looks
> > > > > good to me and may be merged right away.
> > > > > 
> > > > > IGNITE-9388 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9388> needs
> > > > > more work in my opinion, I have commented the PR. I also advice having
> > > > 
> > > > test
> > > > > for this functionality.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > вт, 4 сент. 2018 г. в 6:52, Roman Shtykh <rsht...@yahoo.com.invalid>:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > I would like Mesos integration update be included in the upcoming
> > > > > release.Can anyone review prs for the following issues?
> > > > > IGNITE-9388: mesos IgniteProvider tries to access obsolete ignite.run 
> > > > > or
> > > > > download from slow archiveIGNITE-9408: Update mesos version
> > > > > 
> > > > > Roman Shtykh
> > > > > 
> > > > >    On Thursday, August 30, 2018, 9:25:43 p.m. GMT+9, Vyacheslav 
> > > > > Daradur
> > > > 
> > > > <
> > > > > daradu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi Igniters!
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm working on the following Service Grid tasks:
> > > > > - IGNITE-8361 Use discovery messages for service deployment
> > > > > - IGNITE-8362 Collect service deployment results asynchronously on
> > > > > coordinator
> > > > > - IGNITE-8363 Handle topology changes during service deployment
> > > > > - IGNITE-8364 Propagate deployed services to joining nodes
> > > > > - IGNITE-8365 Introduce service failure events
> > > > > - IGNITE-3392 Propagate service deployment results from assigned nodes
> > > > > to initiator
> > > > > 
> > > > > Let's call them *phase 1* because the should be implemented together
> > > > > (atomically).
> > > > > 
> > > > > I do my best to finish phase 1 for including to 2.7 release.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But I'm not sure that the solution will be fully completed till the
> > > > > beginning of October.
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 7:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hell, Yakov
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I'm ok with your proposal.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >       * Scope freeze - September 17 - We should have a full list of
> > > > > 
> > > > > tickets for 2.7 here.
> > > > > >       * Code freeze - October 01 - We should merge all 2.7 tickets 
> > > > > > to
> > > > > 
> > > > > master here.
> > > > > >       * Vote on RC1 - October 11.
> > > > > >       * Vote on release - October 15.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > В Ср, 29/08/2018 в 12:39 +0300, Yakov Zhdanov пишет:
> > > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I think we should have 2 weeks after code freeze which by the way 
> > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > include RC1 voting stage. This way I would like us to agree that
> > > > > 
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > candidate should be sent to vote on Oct, 11th and we can release 
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > 
> > > > > Oct,
> > > > > > > 15th.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --Yakov
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > > 
> 
> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to