Pavel, thanks for explanation! 2020-12-22 13:34 GMT+03:00, Pavel Tupitsyn <[email protected]>: > Ivan, it is the new GitHub default > > "On Oct. 1, 2020, any new repositories you create will use main as the > default branch, instead of master" [1] > > [1] > https://www.zdnet.com/article/github-to-replace-master-with-main-starting-next-month/ > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 1:12 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Also I noticed that ignite-3 repository has "main" but not "master" >> branch. Who can shed light on this? Did not find an explanation in >> this thread. >> >> 2020-12-22 13:09 GMT+03:00, Ivan Pavlukhin <[email protected]>: >> > I noticed some free-from commit messages in ignite-3 repository. I >> > think we should use ticket-based workflow and commit messages as >> > usual. >> > >> > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/commits/main >> > >> > 2020-12-21 10:55 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <[email protected]>: >> >> There is no problem to have both in new repository, if skilled >> enthusiast >> >> will take over that job. >> >> >> >> I guess we will stick to Maven for time being but development of >> >> Gradle-based building system can be done in parallel. >> >> I can even add corresponding development build configurations for >> >> TeamCity, >> >> or even introduce some kind of switch — so that we can test old and >> >> new >> >> build approaches and provide seamless transition if we agree on that. >> >> >> >>> On 19 Dec 2020, at 01:00, Valentin Kulichenko >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi Ivan, >> >>> >> >>> There was a very brief discussion around this. Basically, it looks >> >>> like >> >>> switching from Maven to something else is not going to bring much >> value, >> >>> but at the same time will be quite demanding because the community >> >>> has >> >>> much >> >>> more experience with Maven. However, I would say that it is still >> >>> debatable at this point -- please feel free to share your thoughts on >> >>> this. >> >>> >> >>> -Val >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 10:53 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <[email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Hi Igniters, >> >>>> >> >>>> Forgive me that I am not reading dev list carefully these days. Was >> >>>> it >> >>>> explicitly decided that Maven should be used as a build system for >> >>>> Ignite 3? As there is a new repository we possibly can update our >> >>>> build tools as well. What do you think? >> >>>> >> >>>> 2020-12-17 22:45 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko < >> >>>> [email protected]>: >> >>>>> Hi Dmitriy, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I don't think there is any reason for concern at this point. The >> >>>> community >> >>>>> agreed on the scope of the changes for 3.0 - it is described on >> >>>>> Wiki. >> >>>>> The >> >>>>> scope is quite big, so it is clear that 2.x and 3.x will have to >> exist >> >>>>> in >> >>>>> parallel for a significant amount of time, so we need a place where >> we >> >>>> can >> >>>>> merge the code for 3.x. Thus, I've created this new repo. We >> >>>>> already >> >>>>> have >> >>>>> multiple IEPs, as well as several contributors who are actively >> >>>>> involved >> >>>> in >> >>>>> development. Some of the first PRs were merged today. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I didn't hear any objections since the repo was created. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -Val >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 7:28 AM Dmitriy Pavlov <[email protected]> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Folks, I'm a little bit concerned about the simultaneous >> >>>>>> - existence of the repo https://github.com/apache/ignite-3 and PRs >> >>>>>> for >> >>>>>> that >> >>>>>> repo >> >>>>>> - and a couple of downvotes from PMC members. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Is it all fine here? Was there any vote /discussion where it was >> >>>>>> discussed >> >>>>>> and consensus approved? What is the status of the ignite-3 repo? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> вт, 15 дек. 2020 г. в 17:30, Carbone, Adam >> >>>>>> <[email protected] >> >>>>> : >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I don't believe Java 7 was LTS, and I hope that others will have >> >>>>>>> upgraded >> >>>>>>> long before that. If that is the release timeframe for 3.0, then >> >>>>>>> I >> >>>>>> suppose >> >>>>>>> that would makes sense, I would still doubt that people would be >> >>>>>>> going >> >>>>>>> newer than java 11, just my opinion of what I'm seeing. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Regards >> >>>>>>> ~adam >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Adam Carbone | Director of Innovation – Intelligent Platform Team >> >>>>>>> | >> >>>>>>> Bottomline Technologies >> >>>>>>> Office: 603-501-6446 | Mobile: 603-570-8418 >> >>>>>>> www.bottomline.com >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On 12/15/20, 4:25 AM, "Ilya Kasnacheev" < >> [email protected]> >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hello! >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I guess Ignite 3.0 will be ready for production use somewhere >> >>>>>>> in >> >>>>>> 2022, >> >>>>>>> realistically. By that time, Java 8 will be long enough out of >> >>>>>> support >> >>>>>>> so >> >>>>>>> that most companies will actually forbid its use, WRT >> >>>>>>> vulnerabilities >> >>>>>>> et >> >>>>>>> all. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> After all we have managed to upgrade from Java 7 to Java 8 and >> >>>> only >> >>>>>>> got a >> >>>>>>> minor amount of complaints. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Regards, >> >>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> пн, 14 дек. 2020 г. в 19:06, Carbone, Adam < >> >>>>>>> [email protected]>: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> So just one bit to consider... Are there features that you need >> >>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>> use in >> >>>>>>>> these newer versions of java? Or are we just updating to stay >> >>>>>>> current? The >> >>>>>>>> reason I ask is that there are still lots of people in an >> >>>>>> enterprise >> >>>>>>> space >> >>>>>>>> that are beholden to having to support legacy JAVAEE supported >> >>>>>>> applications >> >>>>>>>> on Websphere, Weblogic, Redhat, etc... and the organizations >> >>>> that >> >>>>>>> use those >> >>>>>>>> platforms are slow to move... Most of them are still on Java8 >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> So as a platform I think a strong consideration needs to be >> >>>>>>> towards >> >>>>>>> having >> >>>>>>>> the broadest possible support profile until it becomes an >> >>>>>> impediment >> >>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>>> doing things that the platform needs. So far I haven't seen huge >> >>>>>>> things in >> >>>>>>>> the newer versions of java that are must haves ( a few >> >>>> exceptions >> >>>>>> are >> >>>>>>>> things that would be really nice to take advantage of ). >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I think that apache commons has taken the right approach by >> >>>>>>> staying >> >>>>>>> on >> >>>>>>>> java 8 giving the largest possible user base. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Even standardizing on java 11 would have to make us reconsider >> >>>>>>> Ignite as >> >>>>>>>> the platform we are using, we are not so invested in it as of >> >>>>>>> now, >> >>>>>>> even >> >>>>>>>> though we have big plans to leverage it. Just because we aren't >> >>>>>> sure >> >>>>>>> when >> >>>>>>>> we are going to be able to upgrade from java8. It has support >> >>>>>>> through 2022, >> >>>>>>>> so I imagine that is when we will be discussing that. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Regards >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> ~Adam >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Adam Carbone | Director of Innovation – Intelligent Platform >> >>>> Team >> >>>>>>> | >> >>>>>>>> Bottomline Technologies >> >>>>>>>> Office: 603-501-6446 | Mobile: 603-570-8418 >> >>>>>>>> www.bottomline.com >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On 11/24/20, 7:38 AM, "Alexey Zinoviev" <[email protected] >> >>>>> >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Java 15 is better, VarHandles, ForeignMemory access and so >> >>>>>>> on. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> In both cases, I support the Java version 11 and higher for >> >>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>> development! >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:21, Andrey Mashenkov < >> >>>>>>>> [email protected]>: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Let's add maven plugins for sanity checks at the early >> >>>>>> stage. >> >>>>>>>>> I've created a ticket for this [1]. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Also, I've found initial pom.xml has a target version Java >> >>>>>>> 8. >> >>>>>>>>> Do we intend to move to Java 11 (or may be next LTS) and >> >>>>>>> drop >> >>>>>>> Java 8 >> >>>>>>>> in >> >>>>>>>>> Ignite 3.0? >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> [1] >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13751__;!!O3mv9RujDHg!37ujwREhL1l-B3DmRXix6yaN1dE1KgH1Tx_tSl0eLZe4x1y0NnUlF4MzW5FeKAO2Ejs8$ >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:40 AM Valentin Kulichenko < >> >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Folks, >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> I went ahead and created the repository [1]. I also >> >>>>>>> configured a >> >>>>>>>> TeamCity >> >>>>>>>>>> project [2] that runs all available JUnit tests on every >> >>>>>>> PR >> >>>>>>>> creation or >> >>>>>>>>>> update. It also sends the status update to GitHub so >> >>>> that >> >>>>>>> it's >> >>>>>>>> reflected >> >>>>>>>>> in >> >>>>>>>>>> the PR itself so that we can do merges directly from >> >>>>>> GitHub. >> >>>>>>> Basic >> >>>>>>>> steps >> >>>>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>>>>> make a change are described on the Wiki page [3]. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Let me know if you have any questions. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> [1] >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/ignite-3__;!!O3mv9RujDHg!37ujwREhL1l-B3DmRXix6yaN1dE1KgH1Tx_tSl0eLZe4x1y0NnUlF4MzW5FeKIq24lxF$ >> >>>>>>>>>> [2] >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project/ignite3__;!!O3mv9RujDHg!37ujwREhL1l-B3DmRXix6yaN1dE1KgH1Tx_tSl0eLZe4x1y0NnUlF4MzW5FeKFGL_oJx$ >> >>>>>>>>>> [3] >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache*Ignite*3.0*ApacheIgnite3.0-DevelopmentProcess__;Kysj!!O3mv9RujDHg!37ujwREhL1l-B3DmRXix6yaN1dE1KgH1Tx_tSl0eLZe4x1y0NnUlF4MzW5FeKNhWzQ0s$ >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> -Val >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 4:24 PM Valentin Kulichenko < >> >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, guys. It looks like we are much closer to the >> >>>>>>> consensus >> >>>>>>>> now. I >> >>>>>>>>>>> totally on board with the plan, but I would also like >> >>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>> address >> >>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>>> short-term needs. As I've already mentioned earlier, >> >>>>>> there >> >>>>>>> are >> >>>>>>>> several >> >>>>>>>>>>> active IEPs, but we still don't have even a >> >>>> preliminary >> >>>>>>> technical >> >>>>>>>>> process >> >>>>>>>>>>> for working on these IEPs. I believe this might be >> >>>>>>> frustrating >> >>>>>>>> for the >> >>>>>>>>>>> folks who would like to commit code. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> The scope we agreed on is quite big, and it will >> >>>> surely >> >>>>>>> take >> >>>>>>>>> significant >> >>>>>>>>>>> time to implement all the changes and stabilize them. >> >>>>>>> Therefore, >> >>>>>>>> it's >> >>>>>>>>>> clear >> >>>>>>>>>>> to me that we will have to maintain 2.x and 3.x in >> >>>>>>> parallel for >> >>>>>>>> quite >> >>>>>>>>>> some >> >>>>>>>>>>> time - this needs to be addressed somehow. I'm >> >>>>>>> convinced >> >>>>>>> that >> >>>>>>>> having a >> >>>>>>>>>>> separate repo is the ONLY way to do that, and so far, >> >>>> I >> >>>>>>> haven't >> >>>>>>>> heard >> >>>>>>>>> any >> >>>>>>>>>>> clear alternatives or reasons why we shouldn't do >> >>>> this. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> That said, I'm inclined to proceed with this in the >> >>>>>>> next >> >>>>>>> few >> >>>>>>>> days - I >> >>>>>>>>>> will >> >>>>>>>>>>> create a repo and describe the process (which we, of >> >>>>>>> course, can >> >>>>>>>>> discuss >> >>>>>>>>>>> and modify going forward). Let's, at the very least, >> >>>>>>> try >> >>>>>>> and see >> >>>>>>>> where >> >>>>>>>>> it >> >>>>>>>>>>> leads us. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> If someone has any concrete alternative options on how >> >>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>> we can >> >>>>>>>>> maintain >> >>>>>>>>>>> two major versions in parallel, let's have another >> >>>>>>> voice >> >>>>>>>> discussion >> >>>>>>>>> this >> >>>>>>>>>>> Friday. If we do the meeting, we should set it up with >> >>>>>>> a >> >>>>>>> clear >> >>>>>>>> goal to >> >>>>>>>>>> make >> >>>>>>>>>>> a decision. Please let me know if there is interest in >> >>>>>>> this. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> -Val >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 6:31 AM Alexey Goncharuk < >> >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Good, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think we have an intermediate agreement on the >> >>>> scope >> >>>>>> and >> >>>>>>>>> significance >> >>>>>>>>>> of >> >>>>>>>>>>>> the changes we want to make. I suggest creating >> >>>>>>> separate >> >>>>>>>> discussion >> >>>>>>>>>>>> streams >> >>>>>>>>>>>> and calls for each of the suggested topics so that: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - It is clear for the community what is the >> >>>>>> motivation >> >>>>>>> of the >> >>>>>>>>> stream >> >>>>>>>>>>>> (this includes both functional targets and >> >>>>>>> technical >> >>>>>>> debt >> >>>>>>>> issues >> >>>>>>>>>>>> pointed >> >>>>>>>>>>>> out by Sergey) >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Who is planning to take an active part in each >> >>>> of >> >>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>> streams >> >>>>>>>>> (i.e. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> the 'design committee', as Sergey suggested) >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - What are the intermediate and final goals for >> >>>>>>> each >> >>>>>>> of the >> >>>>>>>> streams >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - What are the cross-stream interactions and how >> >>>> we >> >>>>>>>> integrate them >> >>>>>>>>>>>> - How each of the streams will be integrated with >> >>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>> current >> >>>>>>>>>> codebase >> >>>>>>>>>>>> based on the above (here is where we will see >> >>>>>>> whether >> >>>>>>>> drop-in or >> >>>>>>>>>>>> incremental approaches make more sense) >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >> >>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> >> >>>> Best regards, >> >>>> Ivan Pavlukhin >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Ivan Pavlukhin >> > >> >> >> -- >> >> Best regards, >> Ivan Pavlukhin >> >
-- Best regards, Ivan Pavlukhin
