Hello! Task IGNITE-12470 is ready. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12470 Please check this API.
Regards, Ryzhov Sergei. чт, 26 дек. 2019 г. в 18:50, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org>: > Ilya, > > > I agree with you that there is no risk and spring-data-2.2 can be > safely cherry-picked to the ignite-2.8 branch. I'm OK with it. Will > you do such merge or I should do it by myself? > > > As for the second part of your email, you are proposing to bump up a > minor dependencies version (no API changes) for the whole components > mentioned in the parent/pom.xml file, right? From a point of the > release view, it seems not a good thing since a scope test of the > release becomes too wider. I don't think we will simplify thus the > year-long release test scope, so as for me, this sounds not good but > I'd like to hear thoughts of other community members on this point. > > As an alternative, for instance, we can bump minor versions only for > those components which have security vulnerabilities. To find such > dependencies, I've run some local test with a maven > dependency-check-maven [1] an open-source dependency check tool. Here > is a brief report (only a few modules tested): > > spring-core-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar : CVE-2018-15756 [2] > h2-1.4.197.jar : CVE-2018-10054, CVE-2018-14335 (discussed also [3]) > ignite-shmem-1.0.0.jar : CVE-2017-14614 > > > [1] https://jeremylong.github.io/DependencyCheck/index.html > [2] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-15756 > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10801 > > > > On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 at 15:52, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hello! > > > > I propose to add the following ticket to the scope: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12259 (3 commits, be > careful > > with release version) > > > > Adding tickets to scope surely seems crazy now, but I will provide the > > following considerations: > > * This is Spring Data 2.2 integration, which we currently do not have, > > leading to lots of confused questions on stack overflow and mailing list. > > Spring Data is important to our public image since many people may learn > > about out project by starting with Spring Data. > > > > * It has zero code impact outside of its own module (just 2 POM file > > touched and that's all). > > > > * The core was ready since early November but, due to gmail quirk, we did > > not react to it in time. > > > > WDYT? > > > > Another semi-related question. *Should we bump our dependencies' versions > > before releasing 2.8?* I talk mainly about spring and hibernate > > dependencies. We could switch them to their latest maintenance versions > to > > avoid shipping default links to outdated packages. > > > > I think this is one of things that are very hard to do between releases, > so > > I think this dependencies bumping should be a part of a formal > > release/testing cycle, and then be backported to master. > > > > I could volunteer to do that myself, if we agree to merge these version > > upgrades to ignite-2.8 and then re-test. > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > вт, 24 дек. 2019 г. в 13:22, Zhenya Stanilovsky > <arzamas...@mail.ru.invalid > > >: > > > > > > > > Igniters, i`l try to compare 2.8 release candidate vs 2.7.6, > > > last sha 2.8 was build from : 9d114f3137f92aebc2562a > > > i use yardstick benchmarks, 4 bare machine with: 2x Xeon X5570 96Gb > 512GB > > > SSD 2048GB HDD 10GB/s > > > 1 for client (driver) and 3 for servers. > > > this mappings for graphs and real yardstick tests: > > > > > > atomic-put: IgnitePutBenchmark > > > sql-merge-query: IgniteSqlMergeQueryBenchmark > > > atomic-get: IgniteGetBenchmark > > > tx-get: IgniteGetTxBenchmark > > > tx-put: IgnitePutTxBenchmark > > > atomic-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllBenchmark > > > tx-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllTxBenchmark > > > > > > cacheMode — partitioned > > > CacheWriteSynchronizationMode.FULL_SYNC > > > 1 backup > > > > > > 1. wal = log_only 2. wal = none 3. persistence disabled. > > > Thanks Maxim for wiki page [1] > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks > > > > > > do we need some bisect or other work here ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >------- Forwarded message ------- > > > >From: "Maxim Muzafarov" < mmu...@apache.org > > > > >To: dev@ignite.apache.org > > > >Cc: > > > >Subject: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager] > > > >Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:44:31 +0300 > > > > > > > >Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > >It's almost a year has passed since the last major Apache Ignite 2.7 > > > >has been released. We've accumulated a lot of performance improvements > > > >and a lot of new features which are waiting for their release date. > > > >Here is my list of the most interesting things from my point since the > > > >last major release: > > > > > > > >Service Grid, > > > >Monitoring, > > > >Recovery Read > > > >BLT auto-adjust, > > > >PDS compression, > > > >WAL page compression, > > > >Thin client: best effort affinity, > > > >Thin client: transactions support (not yet) > > > >SQL query history > > > >SQL statistics > > > > > > > >I think we should no longer wait and freeze the master branch anymore > > > >and prepare the next major release by the end of the year. > > > > > > > > > > > >I propose to discuss Time, Scope of Apache Ignite 2.8 release and also > > > >I want to propose myself to be the release manager of the planning > > > >release. > > > > > > > >Scope Freeze: November 4, 2019 > > > >Code Freeze: November 18, 2019 > > > >Voting Date: December 10, 2019 > > > >Release Date: December 17, 2019 > > > > > > > > > > > >WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > > > >
