Guys, I created two pull requests [1] [2] for 2.8 release.
First of them [1] is a patch with ticket [3] for ignite-2.8 branch.
Second [2] is a revert of ticket [4] from 2.8 release.
I'm waiting TC run all nightly results for both PRs. I'll write update when
TC runs will be ok.
I'm okay with both proposals (add ticket [1] to release, remove read-only
feature from 2.8 release scope). But I'm not okay with @IgniteExperemental
annotation.
[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7239
[2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7238
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12225
[4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11256
пт, 10 янв. 2020 г. в 14:21, Zhenya Stanilovsky :
>
> Ivan, if i correctly understand, you suggest additional «expiremental»
> stuff only for hiding already leaked RO interface ?
> poor approach as for me.
>
> >Folks,
> >
> >Some thoughts:
> >* Releasing an API with known fallacies sounds really bad thing to me.
> >It can have a negative consequences for a whole project for years. My
> >opinion here that we should resolve the problem with this API somehow
> >before release.
> >* We can mark cluster read-only API (without enum) as experimental and
> >change the API in e.g. 2.8.1.
> >* We can try to exclude read-only API from 2.8 at all.
> >
> >What do you think?
> >
> >пт, 10 янв. 2020 г. в 11:20, Alex Plehanov < plehanov.a...@gmail.com >:
> >>
> >> Guys,
> >>
> >> There is also an issue with cluster activation by thin clients. This
> >> feature (.NET thin client API change and protocol change) was added by
> [1]
> >> without any discussion on dev-list. Sergey's patch [2] deprecate methods
> >> "IgniteCluster.active(boolean)" and "IgniteCluster.active()", but
> didn't do
> >> this for thin clients. If we want to include IGNITE-12225 to 2.8 we also
> >> should not forget about thin client changes, since it will be strange
> if we
> >> introduce some methods to thin client API and protocol and in the same
> >> Ignite version deprecate these methods for servers and thick clients.
> >>
> >> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11709
> >> [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12225
> >>
> >>
> >> пт, 10 янв. 2020 г. в 10:24, Zhenya Stanilovsky <
> arzamas...@mail.ru.invalid
> >> >:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Agree with Nikolay, -1 from me, too.
> >> >
> >> > >Hello, Igniters.
> >> > >
> >> > >I’m -1 to include the read-only patch to 2.8.
> >> > >I think we shouldn’t accept any patches to 2.8 except bug fixes for
> >> > blockers and major issues.
> >> > >
> >> > >Guys, we don’t release Apache Ignite for 13 months!
> >> > >We should focus on the release and make it ASAP.
> >> > >
> >> > >We can’t extend the scope anymore.
> >> > >
> >> > >> 10 янв. 2020 г., в 04:29, Sergey Antonov <
> antonovserge...@gmail.com >
> >> > написал(а):
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Hello, Maxim!
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> This PR [2] doesn't look a very simple +5,517 −2,038, 111 files
> >> > >> changed.
> >> > >> Yes, PR is huge, but I wrote a lot of new tests and reworked
> already
> >> > >> presented. Changes in product code are minimal - only 30 changed
> files
> >> > in
> >> > >> /src/main/ part. And most of them are new control.sh commands and
> >> > >> configuration.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> Do we have customer requests for this feature or maybe users who
> are
> >> > >> waiting for exactly that ENUM values exactly in 2.8 release (not
> the
> >> > 2.8.1
> >> > >> for instance)?
> >> > >> Can we introduce in new features in maintanance release (2.8.1)?
> Cluster
> >> > >> read-only mode will be new feature, if we remove
> IgniteCluster#readOnly
> >> > in
> >> > >> 2.8 release. If all ok with that, lets remove
> IgniteCluster#readOnly and
> >> > >> move ticket [1] to 2.8.1 release.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> Do we have extended test results report (on just only TC.Bot green
> >> > visa)
> >> > >> on this feature to be sure that we will not add any blocker issues
> to
> >> > the
> >> > >> release?
> >> > >> I'm preparing patch for 2.8 release and I will get new TC Bot visa
> vs
> >> > >> release branch.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12225
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> чт, 9 янв. 2020 г. в 19:38, Maxim Muzafarov < mmu...@apache.org
> >:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> Folks,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Let me remind you that we are working on the 2.8 release branch
> >> > >>> stabilization currently (please, keep it in mind).
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Do we have a really STRONG reason for adding such a change [1] to
> the
> >> > >>> ignite-2.8 branch? This PR [2] doesn't look a very simple +5,517
> >> > >>> −2,038, 111 files changed.
> >> > >>> Do we have customer requests for this feature or maybe users who
> are
> >> > >>> waiting for exactly that ENUM values exactly in 2.8 release (not
> the
> >> > >>> 2.8.1 for instance)?
> >> > >>> Can we just simply remove IgniteCluster#readOnly to eliminate any
> >> > >>> backward compatibility issues
