Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my knowledge). Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything else is a technicality.
Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I don't really see a difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come up with a name that is more intuitive than a separate project :) Let's see what others think. -Val On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > Moving the discussion back to the dev list. > > Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a > special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two predefined values - > "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, it needs to be > intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What disturbs me is that > neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the recently released > versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that disturbing. > > - > Denis > > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko < > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Denis, > > > > From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two separate > > projects, because they are based on different codebases. The split you're > > talking about happened a year ago, when we created the repo for Ignite 3. > > This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, as these two > > shared the codebase. > > > > For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just transitioned to > > 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, or will require > a > > completely different fix, which will mean two different tickets. > > > > That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are just different > > versions of the same product, because, as you correctly mentioned, they > > target "same users, community, use cases". At the same time, they are > > developed as different projects on the technical level. Let's not confuse > > these two aspects with each other - they are largely orthogonal. > > > > At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change anything > > fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling and efficient > > ticket management. > > > > -Val > > > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a different > >> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for high-performance > >> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs - thus, a major > >> version. Same users, community, use cases. > >> > >> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. This is how > you're > >> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to work on Ignite > 2 we > >> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. Moreover, many > tickets > >> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 only - which > is a > >> version change in our JIRA. > >> > >> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal. > >> > >> - > >> Denis > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Val, > >>> > >>> I don't see any issues having different projects under Ignite's brand > >>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. This is a bad > >>> case when two different projects must have dependent versions and even > >>> worse when some marketing things affect the development and release > >>> processes. > >>> > >>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is having > >>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from zero. However, both > >>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist. > >>> > >>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko > >>> <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > Ilya, > >>> > > >>> > What exactly is this different focus and different values? Why > exactly > >>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current features? And > why is > >>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both Ignite 2 and > Ignite 3 > >>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is true. I honestly > >>> can't understand what this fuss is all about. > >>> > > >>> > Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems counterproductive at this > >>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, let's discuss them. > >>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we are all here? > :) > >>> > > >>> > -Val > >>> > > >>> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev < > >>> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> Hello! > >>> >> > >>> >> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be called "Ignite <some > >>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus and values > which > >>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's features. > >>> >> > >>> >> Regards, > >>> >> -- > >>> >> Ilya Kasnacheev > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org > >: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Hello, Ignite PMC. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as "Ignite"? > >>> >>> > >>> >>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 is a new > >>> database engine built on completely new architecture. > >>> >>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the name. All is > >>> different > >>> >>> - source code. > >>> >>> - repository. > >>> >>> - features. > >>> >>> - API. > >>> >>> - road map. > >>> >>> - contributors. > >>> >>> - contribution rules. > >>> >>> - release cycle. > >>> >>> *** you are here *** > >>> >>> - jira > >>> >>> - confluence > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as "Ignite3" is > just > >>> another project? > >>> >>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and Ignite3 should > >>> coexists? > >>> >>> > >>> >>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org>: > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> I hope it is not too urgent. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> Sincerely, > >>> >>>> Dmitriy Pavlov > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko < > >>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>>> > Hi Dmitry, > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > According to Infra, this has to be done through > >>> http://selfserve.apache.org/, > >>> >>>> > but only PMC chairs have access. > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira project > and > >>> >>>> > Confluence space? > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > -Val > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko < > >>> >>>> > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > > Infra requests created: > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349 > >>> >>>> > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350 > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> > > -Val > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov < > >>> mr.wei...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> > >> +1 > >>> >>>> > >> > >>> >>>> > >> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that are > >>> Ignite2 and > >>> >>>> > >> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be > logical > >>> and natural > >>> >>>> > >> course of things. > >>> >>>> > >> > >>> >>>> > >> > On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev < > >>> alexpolovt...@gmail.com> > >>> >>>> > >> wrote: > >>> >>>> > >> > > >>> >>>> > >> > +1 > >>> >>>> > >> > This is a welcome proposal, because we already have some > >>> pending Ignite > >>> >>>> > >> 3 > >>> >>>> > >> > specific documents, and it is not clear where to put them > at > >>> the moment. > >>> >>>> > >> > > >>> >>>> > >> > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko < > >>> >>>> > >> > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>>> > >> > > >>> >>>> > >> >> Igniters, > >>> >>>> > >> >> > >>> >>>> > >> >> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x > >>> will coexist > >>> >>>> > >> for a > >>> >>>> > >> >> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we > >>> still > >>> >>>> > >> accumulate > >>> >>>> > >> >> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project, > >>> which seems to > >>> >>>> > >> >> complicate the ticket management. > >>> >>>> > >> >> > >>> >>>> > >> >> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x tickets, > >>> but this > >>> >>>> > >> approach > >>> >>>> > >> >> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new > >>> ticket, it's > >>> >>>> > >> >> likely to be lost. We need a better separation. > >>> >>>> > >> >> > >>> >>>> > >> >> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single > >>> Confluence > >>> >>>> > >> space. > >>> >>>> > >> >> > >>> >>>> > >> >> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new Confluence > >>> space for > >>> >>>> > >> Ignite > >>> >>>> > >> >> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there. > >>> >>>> > >> >> > >>> >>>> > >> >> Any thoughts or objections? > >>> >>>> > >> >> > >>> >>>> > >> >> -Val > >>> >>>> > >> >> > >>> >>>> > >> > > >>> >>>> > >> > > >>> >>>> > >> > -- > >>> >>>> > >> > With regards, > >>> >>>> > >> > Aleksandr Polovtcev > >>> >>>> > >> > >>> >>>> > >> > >>> >>>> > > >>> > >> >
