Folks, Since there are controversial opinions regarding the topic, I've cancelled the vote and would like to resurrect the discussion.
There are a couple of items that I would like to hear your opinions on. 1. I still propose to have a separate Confluence space for Ignite 3. This makes total sense to me - Ignite 2 and 3 have such different architectures, that mixing their internal documentations is really confusing. The same goes for IEPs. 2. If we create a mandatory field to Jira as we discussed, what should be the name? Current suggestions are "Architecture" and "Generation". Are there any other ideas? Please let me know your thoughts. -Val On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, If I missed something in the thread but in case of a separate > JIRA project how are users supposed to create e.g. bug tickets? How > can we make sure that users will not use a wrong JIRA project often? > > 2021-10-05 2:50 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko < > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: > > Ivan, > > > > I'm not pushing, I'm trying to apply the lazy consensus. It soon will be > a > > whole month since I've started the discussion - more than enough to > express > > concerns and provide alternative suggestions. Please keep in mind that we > > are trying to address a very specific technical problem that influences > the > > development. "Do nothing" is not really an option here. > > > > Either way, I will put the initial suggestion for the vote. > > > > -Val > > > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 12:24 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Val, > >> > >> > 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. > >> > >> For a moment I felt that the proposal is pushed. Let's not do so. The > >> subject is very important, years impact I suppose. And the best way > >> here is to reach absolute consensus. Without tight timelines so far. > >> In case if we fail with consensus we can arrange formal voting. > >> > >> 2021-09-29 14:34 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>: > >> > I am watching how Apache Ignite does evolve for over a 3 years already > >> and > >> > see that such hidden (almost no Open Source Community points could be > >> > achieved for refactoring and addressing something that is not directly > >> > project's source executable code) issues drown under constant pressure > >> > of > >> > new features and releases. > >> > > >> > I have never created issues for Maven build refactoring (for > instanced) > >> > because I understand that 1) it is almost impossible for current tech > >> debt > >> > already accumulated and 2) to won't be welcomed by community because > of > >> > indirect relationship to main project's goals. > >> > Considering other parts, please, note [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], > >> > [7], > >> [8] > >> > and many many more issues that have no separate ticket. > >> > > >> > My point — such technical debt is overwhelming and will be never ever > >> > approached. > >> > That is one of the reasons why Ignite 3 being built from scratch, > >> > having > >> in > >> > mind all mistakes we've already made and lots of errors we will never > >> > do > >> > just because there would be no legacy basic for that. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7190 > >> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7326 > >> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7672 > >> > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8496 > >> > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9866 > >> > [6] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10600 > >> > [7] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10683 > >> > [8] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10696 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> On 29 Sep 2021, at 14:14, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade? > >> >> > >> >> I’m not aware of the issues. > >> >> Can you, please, send a tickets or description of existing issues? > >> >> Anyway, it seems change of build tool can be done at any time we want > >> >> > >> >>> — issues related to run scripts? > >> >>> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts? > >> >> > >> >> I’m not aware of those too. > >> >> Can you point to then, please? > >> >> > >> >>> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too? > >> >> > >> >> Yes, from my point of view. > >> >> > >> >>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 14:03, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> > >> написал(а): > >> >>> > >> >>> 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 > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Ivan Pavlukhin > >> > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > Ivan Pavlukhin >
