Hello! If we go the second route, we can call the field "Generation".
Generation: Ignite 2.x Generation: Ignite 3 (no new tickets should ever be filed for Ignite 1.x but if they are, they should go to the first Generation) Regards. -- Ilya Kasnacheev ср, 29 сент. 2021 г. в 00:33, Valentin Kulichenko < valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: > As for the original topic, we need to come to a solution. Let me summarize > what we've discussed so far. > > -PROBLEM- > > Ignite 3 is the next major version of Apache Ignite. It targets the same > use cases and provides a similar set of features as Ignite 2. At the same > time, Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are *technically* separate projects. They are > developed in different repositories (and therefore are based on different > codebases) and implement different internal architectures. To achieve a > more efficient development process, we need to create a clear separation > between 2.x and 3.x within *development resources* (Jira and Confluence). > > -POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS- > > 1. Create a separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite 3 > (initial suggestion). > 2. Add a *mandatory* field in Jira to identify whether a ticket belongs to > 2.x or 3.x. > > If we go with #2, there are still several things to figure out: > > - What is the name of this field? It needs to be intuitive to anyone who > joins the community. > - We need to make sure that Ignite 3 tickets are not mapped to 2.x > versions, and vice versa. Can we restrict this in Jira? Or we will have > to > monitor this manually? > - What do we do with Confluence? > > Nikolay, Ilya, Denis, and others who opposed the initial suggestion: if you > still prefer the second option, could you please address the points above? > I don't think it can be treated as an actual suggestion until we cover > these details. > > Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear picture > on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1. > > -Val > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:22 PM Valentin Kulichenko < > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Folks, > > > > Versioning is a separate topic. We agreed on the current scheme in March > > [1]. If someone thinks we need to change it, please create a new thread > and > > present your suggestions. > > > > [1] > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17ebaad35ca2bd70e716e67683ae7fec9bd97372b6cc57a7e9c81f9d%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E > > > > -Val > > > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:37 PM Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Seems rational. > >> > >> > >> But still 2.11.0 and 21.1.0 for the time being will look like similar or > >> error in either version... > >> > >> > >> > On 27 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > I mean that Ignite 2.x will continue to use old scheme and Ignite 3 > >> > will be e.g. Ignite 21.1 and so on. > >> > > >> > 2021-09-27 14:57 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>: > >> >> How will not they clash if version is based only on date? > >> >> > >> >>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning scheme, > e.g. > >> >>> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions will not > clash. > >> >>> > >> >>> [1] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html > >> >>> > >> >>> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>: > >> >>>> That name will definitely confuse Jira users. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems most > >> intuitive > >> >>>> and > >> >>>> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for instance. > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra <saikat.mai...@gmail.com> > >> >>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Hi, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we were to > >> come > >> >>>>> up > >> >>>>> with a name my other suggestion would be > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Ignite-kernel > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> kernel - for the central or most important part of something > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine compiled for > >> high > >> >>>>> throughput accelerators > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Regards, > >> >>>>> Saikat > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko < > >> >>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>> 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 > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> > >> >>> Best regards, > >> >>> Ivan Pavlukhin > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > > >> > Best regards, > >> > Ivan Pavlukhin > >> > >> >
