Vova, AFAIK, codefreeze was not announced yet. Correct me in case I missed this.
Now, Nikolay finishing checks that he's able to perform release (everything installed and properly configured). So, I recommend him to mention this check here to solve any misunderstanding in case some branches or tags related to 2.7 will be found before we announced codefreeze. ср, 19 сент. 2018 г. в 11:45, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>: > Anton, > > What do you mean under "preparation to real 2.7". It is already real, we > reached formal code freeze phase we agreed on. At this point we need to > exclude non-2.7 commits, otherwise we will not be able to come to stable > branch in two weeks. > For this reason creating a branch for 2.7 at the moment is perfectly valid > thing. This is how we made releases previously. > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:59 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Paul. > > > > There are 2 PRs linked to that ticket. Who is reviewing your changes? > > > > Branch for 2.7 is still master, so if your changes are reviewed and > > accepted soon it will be in 2.7. > > > > Sincerely, > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 16:22, Paul Anderson <devilje...@gmail.com>: > > > > > Hi, may I ask for IGNITE-9298 to be included in 2.7 pls > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:03 PM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, folks. > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments. > > > > > > > > I will follow them. > > > > > > > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:31 +0300, Anton Vinogradov пишет: > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > 1) *Do not* create ignite-2.7 branch until we're not started > > > preparation > > > > to > > > > > real 2.7. > > > > > Use some temporary branch for this check instead, eg. > > > > > ignite-2.7-release-test > > > > > > > > > > 2) Please make sure you'll not cause real release actions (maven > > > release > > > > > and so on). > > > > > Perform only vote_* steps. > > > > > > > > > > 3) Make sure you'll remove all tags, branches, and other RC > artifacts > > > > after > > > > > check. > > > > > > > > > > 4) Mark this release as RC0 to make sure it will be clear to > > everybody > > > > that > > > > > it's a check. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 13:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > If it is an Ignite release, then it has to pass through the vote. > > If > > > > not, > > > > > > then you can do the test without publishing or uploading the > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:18 PM Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case of TC questions — ask me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:16, Nikolay Izhikov < > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
