> I believe that we should improve Ignite evolutionary and not revolutionary. > First of all, change user API with the slow improvements step by step.
Nikolay, Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt addressing? > > >> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>> >
