Hello, Valentin. > Nikolay, Ilya, Denis, and others who opposed the initial suggestion
It seems I don’t write my point clear. I’m +1 to have another jira project for Ignite3. My point is - Ignite3 is not Ignite - it just another database engine. > Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are *technically* separate projects You definition of «technically» is unclear for me. > It targets the same use cases and provides a similar set of features as > Ignite 2 I don’t believe it’s true. I believe that we should improve Ignite evolutionary and not revolutionary. First of all, change user API with the slow improvements step by step. Kafka3, you mentioned, AFAIK doesn’t change user API at all, except removing deprecated methods. [1] [1] https://www.confluent.io/blog/apache-kafka-3-0-major-improvements-and-new-features/ > 29 сент. 2021 г., в 11:43, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> > написал(а): > > 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 >>>> >>>> >>
