Pavel, > We have agreed on a direction for 3.0 [1], no need to change it.
Thank you for sharing the link, but there is no agreement on that thread. The Community even not vote in that direction, so I think we can consider another option here. On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 19:46, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> wrote: > > -1 > > We have agreed on a direction for 3.0 [1], no need to change it. > > [1] > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Ignite-3-0-development-approach-td49922.html > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 7:42 PM Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Pavel, > > > > > 2) Much later, release what is being worked on in ignite-3 as Ignite 4.0 > > or 5.0 > > > > Yes, you're right. > > > > On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 19:41, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > Ilya, > > > > > > > 0. I am accustomed with major.minor.maintenance schema. Does it make > > any difference? > > > > > > There is no difference without a small note that from my point of view > > > minor releases 2.7 > 2.8 > 2.9 by the amount of changes are not so > > > 'minor'. > > > > > > > 2. What's `lock'? > > > > > > I'm talking about some public and marketing activities with 3.0 > > > version which happened some time ago [1]. I don't think they can > > > really block the proposed release but at least it should be discussed > > > how we should promote the new release. > > > > > > > 3. I don't see why there would be implicit PDS compatibility between > > any X.0.0 and Y.0.0, X != Y. > > > > > > Yes, in general, we can't guarantee the PDS compatibility. I propose > > > the following steps: > > > - the next release (3.0) should be without PDS compatibility issues, > > > so users will be able to start their cluster on the same data files or > > > even migrating to the next release without any problems if they don't > > > use deprecated features. > > > - if any next releases (e.g. 4.0) will introduce such issues we should > > > provide migration scripts. > > > > > > > > > [1] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-69%3A+The+evolutionary+release+process#IEP69:Theevolutionaryreleaseprocess-RisksandAssumptions > > > > > > On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 19:30, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Maxim, > > > > > > > > What you propose is > > > > > > > > 1) Take Ignite 2.x, remove some deprecated features, and release that > > as > > > > Ignite 3.0 > > > > 2) Much later, release what is being worked on in ignite-3 as Ignite > > 4.0 or > > > > 5.0 > > > > > > > > Do I understand this correctly? > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 7:15 PM Ilya Kasnacheev < > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > > > 0. I am accustomed with major.minor.maintenance schema. Does it make > > any > > > > > difference? > > > > > 2. What's `lock'? > > > > > 3. I don't see why there would be implicit PDS compatibility between > > any > > > > > X.0.0 and Y.0.0, X != Y. > > > > > 4. I think this is a sensible approach. > > > > > 5. Since ignite-3 seems to be a separate repo ATM, I don't see why > > it is > > > > > applicable. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 5 мар. 2021 г. в 22:09, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > Ignites, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've created the IEP-69 [1] which describes the evolutionary > > release > > > > > > process for the Apache Ignite 2.x version. You can find all the > > > > > > details of my suggestion there, but here you can find the crucial > > > > > > points: > > > > > > > > > > > > 0. Versioning - grand.major.bug-fix[-rc_number] > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Prepare the next 3.0 release based on 2.x with some breaking > > > > > > compatibility changes. The same things happen from time to time > > with > > > > > > other Apache projects like Hadoop, Spark. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Discuss with the whole Community and assign the right release > > > > > > version to the activities related to the development of the new > > Ignite > > > > > > architecture (currently all the changes you can find in the > > ignite-3 > > > > > > branch). > > > > > > I see no 3.0 discussions on the dev-list and I see no-activity with > > > > > > the 3.0 version currently. So, it's better to remove the `lock` > > from > > > > > > the 3.0 version and allow the removal of obsolete features. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Guarantee the PDS compatibility between the `grand` versions of > > the > > > > > > Apache Ignite for the next year. > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Guarantee the bug-fix release for the last 2.x Apache Ignite > > > > > > version for the next year. > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. Perform some improvements which break the backward > > compatibility, > > > > > > for instance: removing @deprecated API (except metrics), removing > > > > > > obsolete modules, changing the cluster defaults. You can find > > > > > > additional details on the IEP-69 page [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, share your thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-69%3A+The+evolutionary+release+process > > > > > > > > > > > > >
