Additional ticket on version notification update filed: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-776
-- Nikita Ivanov On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > On 19.04.2015 17:11, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 09:01AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > > On 19.04.2015 00:57, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Ognen Duzlevski <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hello, > > I have noticed that with 1.0.0-incubating there is somewhat of a delay with > "joining" an ignite cluster. I have 6 EC2 instances - I start ignite.sh > examples/configs/example-ignite.sh & and then move on the next instance. > The same command on the next instance takes about 5-10 seconds before it > returns and each additional instance seems to take even longer. Anyone else > notice this? > > > > You should not be getting such pauses. What OS are you running on? > > > > I get this when I run ingnite.sh (1.0.0-incubating): > [15:22:31] Topology snapshot [ver=3, nodes=3, CPUs=24, heap=3.0GB] > [15:22:32] New version is available at ignite.incubator.apache.org: 1.0.2 > > Where is 1.0.2 available for downloads? All I see is 1.0.0-incubating. > > > You can download it here: http://www.gridgain.com/download/editions/ > > HUH?? Excuse me, is Ignite looking at GridGain's site for version > updates? How on earth can GridGain be offering versions of Ignite that > have not been released, and worse, how can you possibly call the package > > Brane, I believe we have agreed that if anyone wants to offer their own > builds > of Ignite - it is ok, until they are not confused with official Apache > releases of Ignite? If so, then someone moving at the different pace than > Ignite can put binaries for uploads and call it a dev snapshot or community > edition or whatever, no? Just trying to make sure we're on the same page. > > > Certainly, I have no argument with that. However: > > - The build is promoted on the site as "GridGain Community Edition", > which is perfectly fine, but the package is called "gridgain-ignite" and > that's not fine; > - It would be OK if were called 'apache-ignite-x.y.z.-bin-blabla' and > promoted as "Ignite Binaries provided by GridGain" or similar, but in that > case, one can't actually use a different version number than whatever has > been published by the Ignite podling. > > Also note that, according to the OP, the log message (see above) implies > that there's a new version of Ignite available ... which implies it's > looking at the GridGain site. That's OK for for a GridGain Community > Edition to do, but not OK for (convenience) binaries or builds source > published on ASF mirrors. I'm guessing there's some confusion here as to > which binaries were actually used: the goal of our branding and trademarks > policies are to avoid exactly this kind of confusion. > > > To summarize: > > - GridGain Enterprise Edition (e.g., > gridgain-enterprise-foo-version.zip) is fine; > - GridGain Community Edition (e.g., > gridgain-community-foo-version.zip) is fine; > - Apache Ignite binaries provided by GridGain (e.g., > apache-ignite-foo-version.zip) is fine, too, as long as the binaries don't > go announcing version updates from info published on the GridGain site (but > it's OK to look for info on the Ignite site); and as long as they either > don't contain the LGPL&Co. dependencies, or very explicitly warn users that > distribution rights are not covered by ALv2; > - What's currently published is confusing, i.e., not OK. > > > I'd also recommend that whatever GridGain publishes as their open source > edition should have licensing terms and restrictions explained clearly > prominently; of course, if and how that's done is no longer our (the ASF > project's) problem, as long as they adhere to the "principle of least > surprise," q.v. above. > > > 'gridgain-ignite'? There's no such thing. > > Really, I thought we had the brand dilution and trademark violation > questions sorted out. > > That's a bad idea, indeed! There shouldn't be such thing as Foo Ignite, where > Foo != Apache. That's a clear contradiction to TM policy. > > > Yes. > > > -- Brane > >
