And what about: — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade? — issues related to run scripts? — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts?
Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too? > On 29 Sep 2021, at 13:47, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt addressing > > Yes, of course. > > My vision was the following (from the bird eye): > > - 2.20 - removals of LOCAL caches, MVCC and other abandoned features. (User > API doesn’t change). > - 2.30 - replace static XML configuration with the new dynamic approach. > - 2.40 - replace H2 SQL engine with the Calcite > > etc. > > Versions depends on feature readiness. > > Anyway, I step back with the initial Ignite3 development, because, don’t want > to interfere the progress. > > Respect to the developers who have courage to develop such complex things > from scratch. > >> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 12:55, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> написал(а): >> >> >>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >
