Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
22:45, Andrey Kuznetsov > > > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've caught a bug [1] in FsyncModeFileWriteAheadLogManager. > > > > > > > > > > It > > > > > > > > > > > > looks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like a > > > > > > > > > > release blocker to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9776 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:14, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I definitely agree it is a blocker. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:09, Anton Kalashnikov < > > > > > > > > > > kaa@yandex.ru > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have one more possible blockers - deadlock in > > > > > > > > > > > > archiver - > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9761. I > > > > > > > > > > > > almost > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems it should be include to scope. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton Kalashnikov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 02.10.2018, 00:08, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, got it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I agree with Vladimir. Furthermore, I do my > > > > > > > > > > absolute > > > > > > > best to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finalize > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related to. I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > > > > most > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributors doing the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 23:03, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
; > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I definitely agree it is a blocker. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:09, Anton Kalashnikov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kaa@yandex.ru > > > > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have one more possible blockers - deadlock in > > > > > > > > archiver - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9761 > > > > . > > > > I almost > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems it should be include to scope. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton Kalashnikov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 02.10.2018, 00:08, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, got it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I agree with Vladimir. Furthermore, I do > > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > absolute > > > > > > > > > > best to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finalize > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related > > > > to. > > > > I think > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > most > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributors doing the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 23:03, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is precisely the scope we have at the > > &
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
t; > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 23:54, Vladimir Ozerov < > >> voze...@gridgain.com>: > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Andrey, Anton, > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > How do you conclude that these tickets are blockers? > What > >> is the > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > impact to > >> > > > > > > > > users and in what circumstances users can met them? > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Note that we have many hundreds opened bugs, and yet we > >> do not > >> > > > > > >> > > > > strive > >> > > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > > > include them all, because bug != blocker. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > So -1 from my side to including these tickets to release > >> scope, > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > unless > >> > > > > > > > > impact is explained. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Vladimir. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 22:45, Andrey Kuznetsov < > >> stku...@gmail.com>: > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I've caught a bug [1] in > >> FsyncModeFileWriteAheadLogManager. It > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > looks > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > like a > >> > > > > > > > > > release blocker to me. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9776 > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:14, Dmitriy Pavlov < > >> > > > > > >> > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > >> > > > > > > : > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton, > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I definitely agree it is a blocker. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > >> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:09, Anton Kalashnikov < > >> > > > > > >> > > > > kaa@yandex.ru > >> > > > > > > : > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I have one more possible blockers - deadlock in > >> archiver - > >> > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9761 > . > >> I almost > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > fixed > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > it. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems it should be include to scope. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Anton Kalashnikov > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 02.10.2018, 00:08, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < > >> > > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
; > > > > >> > > > > > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 22:45, Andrey Kuznetsov < >> stku...@gmail.com>: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I've caught a bug [1] in >> FsyncModeFileWriteAheadLogManager. It >> > > > > > >> > > > > > looks >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > like a >> > > > > > > > > > release blocker to me. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9776 >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:14, Dmitriy Pavlov < >> > > > > >> > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com >> > > > > > > : >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton, >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I definitely agree it is a blocker. >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, >> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:09, Anton Kalashnikov < >> > > > > >> > > > > kaa@yandex.ru >> > > > > > > : >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I have one more possible blockers - deadlock in >> archiver - >> > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9761. >> I almost >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > fixed >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > it. >> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems it should be include to scope. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > > > > > > > > Anton Kalashnikov >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 02.10.2018, 00:08, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < >> > > > > >> > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org >> > > > > > > : >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, got it. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I agree with Vladimir. Furthermore, I do >> my >> > > > > >> > > > > absolute >> > > > > > > best to >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > finalize >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related to. >> I think >> > > > > > >> > > > > > most >> > > > > > > of >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributors doing the same. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 23:03, Vladimir Ozerov < >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com >&
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
gt; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So -1 from my side to including these tickets to release > > scope, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unless > > > > > > > > > > impact is explained. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 22:45, Andrey Kuznetsov < > > stku...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've caught a bug [1] in > > FsyncModeFileWriteAheadLogManager. It > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like a > > > > > > > > > > > release blocker to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9776 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:14, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I definitely agree it is a blocker. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:09, Anton Kalashnikov < > > > > > > > > > > > > kaa@yandex.ru > > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have one more possible blockers - deadlock in > > archiver - > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9761. > > I almost > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems it should be include to scope. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton Kalashnikov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 02.10.2018, 00:08, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < > > > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, got it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I agree with Vladimir. Furthermore, I do > my > > > > > > > > > > > > absolute > > > > > > > > best to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finalize > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related to. > > I think > > > > > > > > > > > > > > most > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
ker. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:09, Anton Kalashnikov < > > > > > > > > > > kaa@yandex.ru > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have one more possible blockers - deadlock in > archiver - > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9761. > I almost > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems it should be include to scope. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton Kalashnikov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 02.10.2018, 00:08, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, got it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I agree with Vladimir. Furthermore, I do my > > > > > > > > > > absolute > > > > > > > best to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finalize > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related to. > I think > > > > > > > > > > > > most > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributors doing the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 23:03, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is precisely the scope we have at the > moment. All > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > > > > > > were > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > considered carefully on whether to include > them into > > > > > > > > > > AI > > > > > > > 2.7 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scope. > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say that 10-15% of current tickets may be > moved > > > > > > > > > > furhter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Third of current tickets are features on > their final > > > > > > > > > > > > > > review > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Helo, Dmitriy. I looked at patch. Seems it local for a ML module. Is it's true I'm +1 to include it to 2.7. В Чт, 04/10/2018 в 08:33 -0500, dmitrievanthony пишет: > Hi, Yury, Nikolay. > > This issue reproduces in "TensorFlow on Apache Ignite" use cases. When user > prepares training script (like official MNIST model > https://github.com/tensorflow/models/tree/master/official/mnist), runs it in > distributed standalone client mode (see this documentation > https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/tree/master/tensorflow/contrib/distribute#standalone-client-mode) > using IgniteDataset he can see that workers throw exceptions says that > IgniteDataset operation is not loaded. > > For more information about distributed training please see > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PtYmyaT4dPBNp1mWkCczOdCZHt2xaqB183honfMup3g/edit > documentation. > > > > -- > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hi, Yury, Nikolay. This issue reproduces in "TensorFlow on Apache Ignite" use cases. When user prepares training script (like official MNIST model https://github.com/tensorflow/models/tree/master/official/mnist), runs it in distributed standalone client mode (see this documentation https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/tree/master/tensorflow/contrib/distribute#standalone-client-mode) using IgniteDataset he can see that workers throw exceptions says that IgniteDataset operation is not loaded. For more information about distributed training please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PtYmyaT4dPBNp1mWkCczOdCZHt2xaqB183honfMup3g/edit documentation. -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hello, Yuriy What is consequences of this issue? How user can reproduce it? В Чт, 04/10/2018 в 15:02 +0300, Yuriy Babak пишет: > Igniters, > > We have new ticket related with TensorFlow integration: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9788 > > From my point of view this fix is important for release and I want to > include it to 2.7. > > Any objections? > > пн, 20 авг. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > I'm release manager of Apache Ignite 2.7. > > > > It's time to start discussion of release. [1] > > > > Current code freeze date is September, 30. > > If you have any objections - please, responsd to this thread. > > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.7 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Igniters, We have new ticket related with TensorFlow integration: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9788 >From my point of view this fix is important for release and I want to include it to 2.7. Any objections? пн, 20 авг. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov : > Hello, Igniters. > > I'm release manager of Apache Ignite 2.7. > > It's time to start discussion of release. [1] > > Current code freeze date is September, 30. > If you have any objections - please, responsd to this thread. > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.7
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hi Alexey, Security is always mandatory for all Apache projects. So I agree we should include. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov чт, 4 окт. 2018 г. в 12:37, Alexey Kuznetsov : > Hi, All! > > I found a bug with *IGNITE_MBEANS_DISABLED* system property. > I created issue: IGNITE-9792 Setting system property > *IGNITE_MBEANS_DISABLED* to true lead to NPE. > > I think this one can be included into 2.7, because java docs > for IGNITE_MBEANS_DISABLED > claims that "*This may be helpful if MBeans are not allowed e.g. for > security reasons.*" > > The fix is trivial (one liner + simple text). > > I can contribute the fix for this bug. > > 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9792 > > -- > Alexey Kuznetsov >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hi, All! I found a bug with *IGNITE_MBEANS_DISABLED* system property. I created issue: IGNITE-9792 Setting system property *IGNITE_MBEANS_DISABLED* to true lead to NPE. I think this one can be included into 2.7, because java docs for IGNITE_MBEANS_DISABLED claims that "*This may be helpful if MBeans are not allowed e.g. for security reasons.*" The fix is trivial (one liner + simple text). I can contribute the fix for this bug. 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9792 -- Alexey Kuznetsov
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
> > > > > > > > > I definitely agree it is a blocker. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:09, Anton Kalashnikov < > > > > > > > > > > kaa@yandex.ru > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have one more possible blockers - deadlock in > archiver - > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9761. > I almost > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems it should be include to scope. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton Kalashnikov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 02.10.2018, 00:08, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, got it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I agree with Vladimir. Furthermore, I do my > > > > > > > > > > absolute > > > > > > > best to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finalize > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related to. > I think > > > > > > > > > > > > most > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributors doing the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 23:03, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is precisely the scope we have at the > moment. All > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > > > > > > were > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > considered carefully on whether to include > them into > > > > > > > > > > AI > > > > > > > 2.7 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scope. > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say that 10-15% of current tickets may be > moved > > > > > > > > > > furhter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Third of current tickets are features on > their final > > > > > > > > > > > > > > review > > > > > > > > > > > &
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
ixed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > It seems it should be include to scope. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > Anton Kalashnikov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 02.10.2018, 00:08, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, got it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I agree with Vladimir. Furthermore, I do my > > > > > > > > absolute > > > > > > best to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finalize > > > > > > > > > > > > > all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related to. I > > > > > > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > > most > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributors doing the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 23:03, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is precisely the scope we have at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > All > > > > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > > > > > were > > > > > > > > > > > > > > considered carefully on whether to include them > > > > > > > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > AI > > > > > > 2.7 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scope. > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say that 10-15% of current tickets may be moved > > > > > > > > furhter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Third of current tickets are features on their > > > > > > > > > > > > > final > > > > > > > > > > > > review > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stages > > > > > > > > > > > (e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TDE, MVCC invoke, TensorFlow, Thin Clients), > > > > > > > > > > > > > another > > > > > > > > big > > > > > > part > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stabilization tickets (mainly - various test > > > > > > > > failures), > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another > > > > > > > > > > > big > > > > > > > > > > > > > > part is infrastructure (adopting new modules, Java > > > > > > > > > > > > > 9+ > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
hermore, I do my > > > > > > absolute > > > > > best to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finalize > > > > > > > > > > > > all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related to. I > think > > > > > > > > most > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > contributors doing the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 23:03, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is precisely the scope we have at the > moment. All > > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > > > > were > > > > > > > > > > > > > considered carefully on whether to include them > into > > > > > > AI > > > > > 2.7 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scope. > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > say that 10-15% of current tickets may be moved > > > > > > furhter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Third of current tickets are features on their > final > > > > > > > > > > review > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stages > > > > > > > > > > (e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > > > TDE, MVCC invoke, TensorFlow, Thin Clients), > another > > > > > > big > > > > > part > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > stabilization tickets (mainly - various test > > > > > > failures), > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another > > > > > > > > > > big > > > > > > > > > > > > > part is infrastructure (adopting new modules, > Java 9+ > > > > > > > > > > support, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.). So > > > > > > > > > > > > > despite big absolute number, most of these > tickets are > > > > > > > > > > grouped > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > around > > > > > > > > > > > > > several big areas, and overall progress over this > week > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > > > > > > good. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:50 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If this filter is for 2.7 release, then I do not > > > > > > > > > > believe all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will be closed. It would be nice to leave only > > > > > > > > > > "must-have" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.7 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and move t
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
t; > > > > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I agree with Vladimir. Furthermore, I do my > > > > > > absolute > > > > > best to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finalize > > > > > > > > > > > > all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related to. I > think > > > > > > > > most > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > contributors doing the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 23:03, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is precisely the scope we have at the > moment. All > > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > > > > were > > > > > > > > > > > > > considered carefully on whether to include them > into > > > > > > AI > > > > > 2.7 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scope. > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > say that 10-15% of current tickets may be moved > > > > > > furhter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Third of current tickets are features on their > final > > > > > > > > > > review > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stages > > > > > > > > > > (e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > > > TDE, MVCC invoke, TensorFlow, Thin Clients), > another > > > > > > big > > > > > part > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > stabilization tickets (mainly - various test > > > > > > failures), > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another > > > > > > > > > > big > > > > > > > > > > > > > part is infrastructure (adopting new modules, > Java 9+ > > > > > > > > > > support, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.). So > > > > > > > > > > > > > despite big absolute number, most of these > tickets are > > > > > > > > > > grouped > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > around > > > > > > > > > > > > > several big areas, and overall progress over this > week > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > > > > > > good. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:50 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If this filter is for 2.7 release, then I do not > > > > > > > > > > believe all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will be closed. It would be nice to leave only > > > > > > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
> > > > > > > scope. > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > say that 10-15% of current tickets may be moved > > > > furhter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Third of current tickets are features on their final > > > > > > > > review > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stages > > > > > > > > > (e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > > TDE, MVCC invoke, TensorFlow, Thin Clients), another > > > > big > > > > part > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > stabilization tickets (mainly - various test > > > > failures), > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another > > > > > > > > > big > > > > > > > > > > > > part is infrastructure (adopting new modules, Java 9+ > > > > > > > > support, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.). So > > > > > > > > > > > > despite big absolute number, most of these tickets are > > > > > > > > grouped > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > around > > > > > > > > > > > > several big areas, and overall progress over this week > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > > > > > good. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:50 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If this filter is for 2.7 release, then I do not > > > > > > > > believe all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > > > > > > > will be closed. It would be nice to leave only > > > > > > > > "must-have" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > 2.7 > > > > > > > > > > > > > and move the rest to 2.8. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:02 AM Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please use this filter, as it properly handles > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > > > > > components: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20(component%20
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
gt; users and in what circumstances users can met them? >> > > > > >> > > > > Note that we have many hundreds opened bugs, and yet we do not >> strive >> > > to >> > > > > include them all, because bug != blocker. >> > > > > >> > > > > So -1 from my side to including these tickets to release scope, >> > unless >> > > > > impact is explained. >> > > > > >> > > > > Vladimir. >> > > > > >> > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 22:45, Andrey Kuznetsov : >> > > > > >> > > > > > I've caught a bug [1] in FsyncModeFileWriteAheadLogManager. It >> > looks >> > > > > >> > > > > like a >> > > > > > release blocker to me. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9776 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:14, Dmitriy Pavlov < >> dpavlov@gmail.com >> > >: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Anton, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I definitely agree it is a blocker. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Sincerely, >> > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:09, Anton Kalashnikov < >> kaa@yandex.ru >> > >: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I have one more possible blockers - deadlock in archiver - >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9761. I almost >> > > fixed >> > > > > >> > > > > it. >> > > > > > > > It seems it should be include to scope. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > > > > Anton Kalashnikov >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 02.10.2018, 00:08, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < >> dsetrak...@apache.org >> > >: >> > > > > > > > > Thanks, got it. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < >> > > > > >> > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Here I agree with Vladimir. Furthermore, I do my >> absolute >> > > best to >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > finalize >> > > > > > > > > > all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related to. I think >> > most >> > > of >> > > > > >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > contributors doing the same. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 23:03, Vladimir Ozerov < >> > > > > >> > > > > voze...@gridgain.com >> > > > > > > : >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > This is precisely the scope we have at the moment. >> All >> > > these >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > tickets >> > > > > > > > were >> > > > > > > > > > > considered carefully on whether to include them into >> AI >> > > 2.7 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > scope. >> > > > > > > I >> > > > > > > > > > would >> > > > > > > > > > > say that 10-15% of current tickets may be moved >> furhter. >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Third of current tickets are features on their final >> > > review >> > > > > > >> > > > > > stages &
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
gt; > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9776 > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:14, Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I definitely agree it is a blocker. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:09, Anton Kalashnikov < > kaa@yandex.ru > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have one more possible blockers - deadlock in archiver - > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9761. I almost > > > fixed > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > It seems it should be include to scope. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Anton Kalashnikov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 02.10.2018, 00:08, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < > dsetrak...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > > > > Thanks, got it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I agree with Vladimir. Furthermore, I do my > absolute > > > best to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finalize > > > > > > > > > > all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related to. I think > > most > > > of > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > contributors doing the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 23:03, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is precisely the scope we have at the moment. All > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > > were > > > > > > > > > > > considered carefully on whether to include them into > AI > > > 2.7 > > > > > > > > > > > > scope. > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > say that 10-15% of current tickets may be moved > furhter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Third of current tickets are features on their final > > > review > > > > > > > > > > > > stages > > > > > > > > (e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > TDE, MVCC invoke, TensorFlow, Thin Clients), another > big > > > part > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > stabilization tickets (mainly - various test > failures), > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > another > > > > > > > > big > > > > > > > > > > > part is infrastructure (adopting new modules, Java 9+ > > > support, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.). So > > > > > > > > > > > despite big absolute number, most of these tickets are > > > grouped > > > > > > > > > > > > > > around > > > > > > > > > > > several big areas, and overall progress over this week > > > should > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > very > > > &g
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
should be include to scope. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > Anton Kalashnikov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 02.10.2018, 00:08, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" >: > > > > > > > > Thanks, got it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I agree with Vladimir. Furthermore, I do my absolute > > best to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finalize > > > > > > > > > all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related to. I think > most > > of > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > contributors doing the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 23:03, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is precisely the scope we have at the moment. All > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > were > > > > > > > > > > considered carefully on whether to include them into AI > > 2.7 > > > > > > > > > > scope. > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > say that 10-15% of current tickets may be moved furhter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Third of current tickets are features on their final > > review > > > > > > > > > > stages > > > > > > > (e.g. > > > > > > > > > > TDE, MVCC invoke, TensorFlow, Thin Clients), another big > > part > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > stabilization tickets (mainly - various test failures), > > and > > > > > > > > > > another > > > > > > > big > > > > > > > > > > part is infrastructure (adopting new modules, Java 9+ > > support, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.). So > > > > > > > > > > despite big absolute number, most of these tickets are > > grouped > > > > > > > > > > > > around > > > > > > > > > > several big areas, and overall progress over this week > > should > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > very > > > > > > > > > good. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:50 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If this filter is for 2.7 release, then I do not > > believe all > > > > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > > > > > will be closed. It would be nice to leave only > > "must-have" > > > > > > > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > 2.7 > > > > > > > > > > > and move the rest to 2.8. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:02 AM Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
tickets > > > > > > were > > > > > > > > > considered carefully on whether to include them into AI > 2.7 > > > > > > > > scope. > > > > > I > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > say that 10-15% of current tickets may be moved furhter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Third of current tickets are features on their final > review > > > > > > > > stages > > > > > > (e.g. > > > > > > > > > TDE, MVCC invoke, TensorFlow, Thin Clients), another big > part > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > stabilization tickets (mainly - various test failures), > and > > > > > > > > another > > > > > > big > > > > > > > > > part is infrastructure (adopting new modules, Java 9+ > support, > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.). So > > > > > > > > > despite big absolute number, most of these tickets are > grouped > > > > > > > > > > around > > > > > > > > > several big areas, and overall progress over this week > should > > > > > > be > > > > > very > > > > > > > > good. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:50 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If this filter is for 2.7 release, then I do not > believe all > > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > > > > will be closed. It would be nice to leave only > "must-have" > > > > > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > 2.7 > > > > > > > > > > and move the rest to 2.8. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:02 AM Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please use this filter, as it properly handles tickets > > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > > components: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20(component%20is%20null%20or%20component%20not%20in%20(documentation)))%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 6:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov < > > > > > > > > > > > > nizhi...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I announce scope freeze for an Apache Ignite 2.7 > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It means: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. We add to 2.7 only critical bugs. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. We merge to 2.7 branch only previously announces > > > > > > > > features
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
; > > big > > > > > > > > part is infrastructure (adopting new modules, Java 9+ support, > > > > > > > > > > etc.). So > > > > > > > > despite big absolute number, most of these tickets are grouped > > > > > > > > around > > > > > > > > several big areas, and overall progress over this week should > > > > be > > > > very > > > > > > > good. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:50 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If this filter is for 2.7 release, then I do not believe all > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > > > will be closed. It would be nice to leave only "must-have" > > > > > > > > tickets > > > > > in > > > > > > > 2.7 > > > > > > > > > and move the rest to 2.8. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:02 AM Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please use this filter, as it properly handles tickets > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > components: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20(component%20is%20null%20or%20component%20not%20in%20(documentation)))%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 6:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov < > > > > > > > > > > nizhi...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I announce scope freeze for an Apache Ignite 2.7 release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It means: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. We add to 2.7 only critical bugs. > > > > > > > > > > > 2. We merge to 2.7 branch only previously announces > > > > > > features. > > > > > > > > > > > 3. I expect we should exclude or *MERGE ALL TASKS FOR 2.7 > > > > > > DUE > > > > > TO > > > > > > > > > OCTOBER > > > > > > > > > > > 10*. > > > > > > > > > > > So the *October 10 is DEADLINE* for new features. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For now we have 34 In Progress tickets planned to 2.7 > > > > > > version > > > > > [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > So is you assigned to any of this ticker friendly > > > > reminder > > > > #1, > > > > > *the > > > > > > > > > > > deadline is near :)*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hi Igniters, Vladimir, NPEs or hangs in WAL is a completely non-functional grid (if persistence enabled). I see no reasons to release 2.7 with such symptoms until we're sure it is too rare/impossible to reproduce. But it seems it is not the case. I will definitely vote -1 for the release if I'm aware of such problems exist and were not researched. Community guarantees the quality and usability of the product. We should ask and answer other questions: 1) why there are a lot of NPEs and hangs reported recently in the same area 2) and why we signed-off commit(s). Probably we can identify and revert these commit(s) from 2.7 and research these failures in master (with no rush). Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 23:54, Vladimir Ozerov : > Andrey, Anton, > > How do you conclude that these tickets are blockers? What is the impact to > users and in what circumstances users can met them? > > Note that we have many hundreds opened bugs, and yet we do not strive to > include them all, because bug != blocker. > > So -1 from my side to including these tickets to release scope, unless > impact is explained. > > Vladimir. > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 22:45, Andrey Kuznetsov : > > > I've caught a bug [1] in FsyncModeFileWriteAheadLogManager. It looks > like a > > release blocker to me. > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9776 > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:14, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > Hi Anton, > > > > > > I definitely agree it is a blocker. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:09, Anton Kalashnikov : > > > > > > > Hi Igniters. > > > > > > > > I have one more possible blockers - deadlock in archiver - > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9761. I almost fixed > it. > > > > It seems it should be include to scope. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > Anton Kalashnikov > > > > > > > > > > > > 02.10.2018, 00:08, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" : > > > > > Thanks, got it. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Here I agree with Vladimir. Furthermore, I do my absolute best to > > > > finalize > > > > >> all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related to. I think most of > the > > > > >> contributors doing the same. > > > > >> > > > > >> пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 23:03, Vladimir Ozerov < > voze...@gridgain.com > > >: > > > > >> > > > > >> > This is precisely the scope we have at the moment. All these > > > tickets > > > > were > > > > >> > considered carefully on whether to include them into AI 2.7 > > scope. > > > I > > > > >> would > > > > >> > say that 10-15% of current tickets may be moved furhter. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Third of current tickets are features on their final review > > stages > > > > (e.g. > > > > >> > TDE, MVCC invoke, TensorFlow, Thin Clients), another big part > is > > > > >> > stabilization tickets (mainly - various test failures), and > > another > > > > big > > > > >> > part is infrastructure (adopting new modules, Java 9+ support, > > > > etc.). So > > > > >> > despite big absolute number, most of these tickets are grouped > > > around > > > > >> > several big areas, and overall progress over this week should > be > > > very > > > > >> good. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:50 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > If this filter is for 2.7 release, then I do not believe all > > > these > > > > >> > tickets > > > > >> > > will be closed. It would be nice to leave only "must-have" > > > tickets > > > > in > > > > >> 2.7 > > > > >> > > and move the rest to 2.8. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > D. > > &
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Andrey, Anton, How do you conclude that these tickets are blockers? What is the impact to users and in what circumstances users can met them? Note that we have many hundreds opened bugs, and yet we do not strive to include them all, because bug != blocker. So -1 from my side to including these tickets to release scope, unless impact is explained. Vladimir. вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 22:45, Andrey Kuznetsov : > I've caught a bug [1] in FsyncModeFileWriteAheadLogManager. It looks like a > release blocker to me. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9776 > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:14, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > Hi Anton, > > > > I definitely agree it is a blocker. > > > > Sincerely, > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:09, Anton Kalashnikov : > > > > > Hi Igniters. > > > > > > I have one more possible blockers - deadlock in archiver - > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9761. I almost fixed it. > > > It seems it should be include to scope. > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Anton Kalashnikov > > > > > > > > > 02.10.2018, 00:08, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" : > > > > Thanks, got it. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Here I agree with Vladimir. Furthermore, I do my absolute best to > > > finalize > > > >> all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related to. I think most of the > > > >> contributors doing the same. > > > >> > > > >> пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 23:03, Vladimir Ozerov >: > > > >> > > > >> > This is precisely the scope we have at the moment. All these > > tickets > > > were > > > >> > considered carefully on whether to include them into AI 2.7 > scope. > > I > > > >> would > > > >> > say that 10-15% of current tickets may be moved furhter. > > > >> > > > > >> > Third of current tickets are features on their final review > stages > > > (e.g. > > > >> > TDE, MVCC invoke, TensorFlow, Thin Clients), another big part is > > > >> > stabilization tickets (mainly - various test failures), and > another > > > big > > > >> > part is infrastructure (adopting new modules, Java 9+ support, > > > etc.). So > > > >> > despite big absolute number, most of these tickets are grouped > > around > > > >> > several big areas, and overall progress over this week should be > > very > > > >> good. > > > >> > > > > >> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:50 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > If this filter is for 2.7 release, then I do not believe all > > these > > > >> > tickets > > > >> > > will be closed. It would be nice to leave only "must-have" > > tickets > > > in > > > >> 2.7 > > > >> > > and move the rest to 2.8. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > D. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:02 AM Vladimir Ozerov < > > > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Igniters, > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Please use this filter, as it properly handles tickets > without > > > >> > > components: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20(component%20is%20null%20or%20component%20not%20in%20(documentation)))%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 6:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov < > > > nizhi...@apache.org> > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> &
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
I've caught a bug [1] in FsyncModeFileWriteAheadLogManager. It looks like a release blocker to me. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9776 вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:14, Dmitriy Pavlov : > Hi Anton, > > I definitely agree it is a blocker. > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:09, Anton Kalashnikov : > > > Hi Igniters. > > > > I have one more possible blockers - deadlock in archiver - > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9761. I almost fixed it. > > It seems it should be include to scope. > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Anton Kalashnikov > > > > > > 02.10.2018, 00:08, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" : > > > Thanks, got it. > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > wrote: > > > > > >> Here I agree with Vladimir. Furthermore, I do my absolute best to > > finalize > > >> all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related to. I think most of the > > >> contributors doing the same. > > >> > > >> пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 23:03, Vladimir Ozerov : > > >> > > >> > This is precisely the scope we have at the moment. All these > tickets > > were > > >> > considered carefully on whether to include them into AI 2.7 scope. > I > > >> would > > >> > say that 10-15% of current tickets may be moved furhter. > > >> > > > >> > Third of current tickets are features on their final review stages > > (e.g. > > >> > TDE, MVCC invoke, TensorFlow, Thin Clients), another big part is > > >> > stabilization tickets (mainly - various test failures), and another > > big > > >> > part is infrastructure (adopting new modules, Java 9+ support, > > etc.). So > > >> > despite big absolute number, most of these tickets are grouped > around > > >> > several big areas, and overall progress over this week should be > very > > >> good. > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:50 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > If this filter is for 2.7 release, then I do not believe all > these > > >> > tickets > > >> > > will be closed. It would be nice to leave only "must-have" > tickets > > in > > >> 2.7 > > >> > > and move the rest to 2.8. > > >> > > > > >> > > D. > > >> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:02 AM Vladimir Ozerov < > > voze...@gridgain.com> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Igniters, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Please use this filter, as it properly handles tickets without > > >> > > components: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20(component%20is%20null%20or%20component%20not%20in%20(documentation)))%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 6:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov < > > nizhi...@apache.org> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I announce scope freeze for an Apache Ignite 2.7 release. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > It means: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > 1. We add to 2.7 only critical bugs. > > >> > > > > 2. We merge to 2.7 branch only previously announces features. > > >> > > > > 3. I expect we should exclude or *MERGE ALL TASKS FOR 2.7 DUE > > TO > > >> > > OCTOBER > > >> > > > > 10*. > > >> > > > > So the *October 10 is DEADLINE* for new features. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thoughts? > > >> > > > &
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hi Anton, I definitely agree it is a blocker. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:09, Anton Kalashnikov : > Hi Igniters. > > I have one more possible blockers - deadlock in archiver - > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9761. I almost fixed it. > It seems it should be include to scope. > > -- > Best regards, > Anton Kalashnikov > > > 02.10.2018, 00:08, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" : > > Thanks, got it. > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > >> Here I agree with Vladimir. Furthermore, I do my absolute best to > finalize > >> all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related to. I think most of the > >> contributors doing the same. > >> > >> пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 23:03, Vladimir Ozerov : > >> > >> > This is precisely the scope we have at the moment. All these tickets > were > >> > considered carefully on whether to include them into AI 2.7 scope. I > >> would > >> > say that 10-15% of current tickets may be moved furhter. > >> > > >> > Third of current tickets are features on their final review stages > (e.g. > >> > TDE, MVCC invoke, TensorFlow, Thin Clients), another big part is > >> > stabilization tickets (mainly - various test failures), and another > big > >> > part is infrastructure (adopting new modules, Java 9+ support, > etc.). So > >> > despite big absolute number, most of these tickets are grouped around > >> > several big areas, and overall progress over this week should be very > >> good. > >> > > >> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:50 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > dsetrak...@apache.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > If this filter is for 2.7 release, then I do not believe all these > >> > tickets > >> > > will be closed. It would be nice to leave only "must-have" tickets > in > >> 2.7 > >> > > and move the rest to 2.8. > >> > > > >> > > D. > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:02 AM Vladimir Ozerov < > voze...@gridgain.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Igniters, > >> > > > > >> > > > Please use this filter, as it properly handles tickets without > >> > > components: > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20(component%20is%20null%20or%20component%20not%20in%20(documentation)))%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 > >> > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 6:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov < > nizhi...@apache.org> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hello, Igniters. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I announce scope freeze for an Apache Ignite 2.7 release. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > It means: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > 1. We add to 2.7 only critical bugs. > >> > > > > 2. We merge to 2.7 branch only previously announces features. > >> > > > > 3. I expect we should exclude or *MERGE ALL TASKS FOR 2.7 DUE > TO > >> > > OCTOBER > >> > > > > 10*. > >> > > > > So the *October 10 is DEADLINE* for new features. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Thoughts? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > For now we have 34 In Progress tickets planned to 2.7 version > [1]. > >> > > > > So is you assigned to any of this ticker friendly reminder #1, > *the > >> > > > > deadline is near :)*. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > [1] > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8803?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20component%20!%3D%20documentat
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hi Igniters. I have one more possible blockers - deadlock in archiver - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9761. I almost fixed it. It seems it should be include to scope. -- Best regards, Anton Kalashnikov 02.10.2018, 00:08, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" : > Thanks, got it. > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > >> Here I agree with Vladimir. Furthermore, I do my absolute best to finalize >> all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related to. I think most of the >> contributors doing the same. >> >> пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 23:03, Vladimir Ozerov : >> >> > This is precisely the scope we have at the moment. All these tickets were >> > considered carefully on whether to include them into AI 2.7 scope. I >> would >> > say that 10-15% of current tickets may be moved furhter. >> > >> > Third of current tickets are features on their final review stages (e.g. >> > TDE, MVCC invoke, TensorFlow, Thin Clients), another big part is >> > stabilization tickets (mainly - various test failures), and another big >> > part is infrastructure (adopting new modules, Java 9+ support, etc.). So >> > despite big absolute number, most of these tickets are grouped around >> > several big areas, and overall progress over this week should be very >> good. >> > >> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:50 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan >> > wrote: >> > >> > > If this filter is for 2.7 release, then I do not believe all these >> > tickets >> > > will be closed. It would be nice to leave only "must-have" tickets in >> 2.7 >> > > and move the rest to 2.8. >> > > >> > > D. >> > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:02 AM Vladimir Ozerov >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Igniters, >> > > > >> > > > Please use this filter, as it properly handles tickets without >> > > components: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20(component%20is%20null%20or%20component%20not%20in%20(documentation)))%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 6:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hello, Igniters. >> > > > > >> > > > > I announce scope freeze for an Apache Ignite 2.7 release. >> > > > > >> > > > > It means: >> > > > > >> > > > > 1. We add to 2.7 only critical bugs. >> > > > > 2. We merge to 2.7 branch only previously announces features. >> > > > > 3. I expect we should exclude or *MERGE ALL TASKS FOR 2.7 DUE TO >> > > OCTOBER >> > > > > 10*. >> > > > > So the *October 10 is DEADLINE* for new features. >> > > > > >> > > > > Thoughts? >> > > > > >> > > > > For now we have 34 In Progress tickets planned to 2.7 version [1]. >> > > > > So is you assigned to any of this ticker friendly reminder #1, *the >> > > > > deadline is near :)*. >> > > > > >> > > > > [1] >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8803?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20component%20!%3D%20documentation%20)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > В Пн, 01/10/2018 в 16:13 +0300, Andrey Gura пишет: >> > > > > > Agree with Andrey. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > IGNITE-9723 will be merged to ignite-2.7 branch soon. >> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:56 PM Andrey Kuznetsov < >> stku...@gmail.com >> > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Igniters, >> > &g
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Thanks, got it. On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > Here I agree with Vladimir. Furthermore, I do my absolute best to finalize > all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related to. I think most of the > contributors doing the same. > > пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 23:03, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > This is precisely the scope we have at the moment. All these tickets were > > considered carefully on whether to include them into AI 2.7 scope. I > would > > say that 10-15% of current tickets may be moved furhter. > > > > Third of current tickets are features on their final review stages (e.g. > > TDE, MVCC invoke, TensorFlow, Thin Clients), another big part is > > stabilization tickets (mainly - various test failures), and another big > > part is infrastructure (adopting new modules, Java 9+ support, etc.). So > > despite big absolute number, most of these tickets are grouped around > > several big areas, and overall progress over this week should be very > good. > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:50 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan > > wrote: > > > > > If this filter is for 2.7 release, then I do not believe all these > > tickets > > > will be closed. It would be nice to leave only "must-have" tickets in > 2.7 > > > and move the rest to 2.8. > > > > > > D. > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:02 AM Vladimir Ozerov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > Please use this filter, as it properly handles tickets without > > > components: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20(component%20is%20null%20or%20component%20not%20in%20(documentation)))%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 6:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > I announce scope freeze for an Apache Ignite 2.7 release. > > > > > > > > > > It means: > > > > > > > > > > 1. We add to 2.7 only critical bugs. > > > > > 2. We merge to 2.7 branch only previously announces features. > > > > > 3. I expect we should exclude or *MERGE ALL TASKS FOR 2.7 DUE TO > > > OCTOBER > > > > > 10*. > > > > > So the *October 10 is DEADLINE* for new features. > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > For now we have 34 In Progress tickets planned to 2.7 version [1]. > > > > > So is you assigned to any of this ticker friendly reminder #1, *the > > > > > deadline is near :)*. > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8803?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20component%20!%3D%20documentation%20)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Пн, 01/10/2018 в 16:13 +0300, Andrey Gura пишет: > > > > > > Agree with Andrey. > > > > > > > > > > > > IGNITE-9723 will be merged to ignite-2.7 branch soon. > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:56 PM Andrey Kuznetsov < > stku...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is an inaccuracy in critical worker termination > detection, > > > and > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > working on a fix right now, see [1]. Also, we have trivial yet > > > > > important > > > > > > > fix [2], this one is ready to merge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I deem both should get to 2.7. Any objections? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9744 > > > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9723 > > > > > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Here I agree with Vladimir. Furthermore, I do my absolute best to finalize all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related to. I think most of the contributors doing the same. пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 23:03, Vladimir Ozerov : > This is precisely the scope we have at the moment. All these tickets were > considered carefully on whether to include them into AI 2.7 scope. I would > say that 10-15% of current tickets may be moved furhter. > > Third of current tickets are features on their final review stages (e.g. > TDE, MVCC invoke, TensorFlow, Thin Clients), another big part is > stabilization tickets (mainly - various test failures), and another big > part is infrastructure (adopting new modules, Java 9+ support, etc.). So > despite big absolute number, most of these tickets are grouped around > several big areas, and overall progress over this week should be very good. > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:50 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan > wrote: > > > If this filter is for 2.7 release, then I do not believe all these > tickets > > will be closed. It would be nice to leave only "must-have" tickets in 2.7 > > and move the rest to 2.8. > > > > D. > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:02 AM Vladimir Ozerov > > wrote: > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > Please use this filter, as it properly handles tickets without > > components: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20(component%20is%20null%20or%20component%20not%20in%20(documentation)))%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 6:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > I announce scope freeze for an Apache Ignite 2.7 release. > > > > > > > > It means: > > > > > > > > 1. We add to 2.7 only critical bugs. > > > > 2. We merge to 2.7 branch only previously announces features. > > > > 3. I expect we should exclude or *MERGE ALL TASKS FOR 2.7 DUE TO > > OCTOBER > > > > 10*. > > > > So the *October 10 is DEADLINE* for new features. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > For now we have 34 In Progress tickets planned to 2.7 version [1]. > > > > So is you assigned to any of this ticker friendly reminder #1, *the > > > > deadline is near :)*. > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8803?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20component%20!%3D%20documentation%20)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Пн, 01/10/2018 в 16:13 +0300, Andrey Gura пишет: > > > > > Agree with Andrey. > > > > > > > > > > IGNITE-9723 will be merged to ignite-2.7 branch soon. > > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:56 PM Andrey Kuznetsov > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > There is an inaccuracy in critical worker termination detection, > > and > > > > I'm > > > > > > working on a fix right now, see [1]. Also, we have trivial yet > > > > important > > > > > > fix [2], this one is ready to merge. > > > > > > > > > > > > I deem both should get to 2.7. Any objections? > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9744 > > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9723 > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 13:13, Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can consider this thread as an almost healthy discussion > about > > > SG > > > > > > > inclusion to 2.7. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the future, I encourage all Igniters to discuss things > before > > > > agreement > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
This is precisely the scope we have at the moment. All these tickets were considered carefully on whether to include them into AI 2.7 scope. I would say that 10-15% of current tickets may be moved furhter. Third of current tickets are features on their final review stages (e.g. TDE, MVCC invoke, TensorFlow, Thin Clients), another big part is stabilization tickets (mainly - various test failures), and another big part is infrastructure (adopting new modules, Java 9+ support, etc.). So despite big absolute number, most of these tickets are grouped around several big areas, and overall progress over this week should be very good. On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:50 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > If this filter is for 2.7 release, then I do not believe all these tickets > will be closed. It would be nice to leave only "must-have" tickets in 2.7 > and move the rest to 2.8. > > D. > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:02 AM Vladimir Ozerov > wrote: > > > Igniters, > > > > Please use this filter, as it properly handles tickets without > components: > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20(component%20is%20null%20or%20component%20not%20in%20(documentation)))%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 6:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov > > wrote: > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > I announce scope freeze for an Apache Ignite 2.7 release. > > > > > > It means: > > > > > > 1. We add to 2.7 only critical bugs. > > > 2. We merge to 2.7 branch only previously announces features. > > > 3. I expect we should exclude or *MERGE ALL TASKS FOR 2.7 DUE TO > OCTOBER > > > 10*. > > > So the *October 10 is DEADLINE* for new features. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > For now we have 34 In Progress tickets planned to 2.7 version [1]. > > > So is you assigned to any of this ticker friendly reminder #1, *the > > > deadline is near :)*. > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8803?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20component%20!%3D%20documentation%20)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 > > > > > > > > > > > > В Пн, 01/10/2018 в 16:13 +0300, Andrey Gura пишет: > > > > Agree with Andrey. > > > > > > > > IGNITE-9723 will be merged to ignite-2.7 branch soon. > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:56 PM Andrey Kuznetsov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > There is an inaccuracy in critical worker termination detection, > and > > > I'm > > > > > working on a fix right now, see [1]. Also, we have trivial yet > > > important > > > > > fix [2], this one is ready to merge. > > > > > > > > > > I deem both should get to 2.7. Any objections? > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9744 > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9723 > > > > > > > > > > пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 13:13, Dmitriy Pavlov >: > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > We can consider this thread as an almost healthy discussion about > > SG > > > > > > inclusion to 2.7. > > > > > > > > > > > > For the future, I encourage all Igniters to discuss things before > > > agreement > > > > > > on dev.list instead of trying to log 'some pre-build agreements' > > > here. BTW > > > > > > such logged 'agreements' are not always valid. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dev list is not a log of community actions; it is the principal > > > place where > > > > > > discussion runs. I sincerely hope all similar decisions will be > > > building on > > > > > > the dev list. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > вс, 30 сент. 2018 г. в 10:49, Nikolay Izhikov < > nizhi...@ap
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
If this filter is for 2.7 release, then I do not believe all these tickets will be closed. It would be nice to leave only "must-have" tickets in 2.7 and move the rest to 2.8. D. On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:02 AM Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Igniters, > > Please use this filter, as it properly handles tickets without components: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20(component%20is%20null%20or%20component%20not%20in%20(documentation)))%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 6:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov > wrote: > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > I announce scope freeze for an Apache Ignite 2.7 release. > > > > It means: > > > > 1. We add to 2.7 only critical bugs. > > 2. We merge to 2.7 branch only previously announces features. > > 3. I expect we should exclude or *MERGE ALL TASKS FOR 2.7 DUE TO OCTOBER > > 10*. > > So the *October 10 is DEADLINE* for new features. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > For now we have 34 In Progress tickets planned to 2.7 version [1]. > > So is you assigned to any of this ticker friendly reminder #1, *the > > deadline is near :)*. > > > > [1] > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8803?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20component%20!%3D%20documentation%20)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 > > > > > > > > В Пн, 01/10/2018 в 16:13 +0300, Andrey Gura пишет: > > > Agree with Andrey. > > > > > > IGNITE-9723 will be merged to ignite-2.7 branch soon. > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:56 PM Andrey Kuznetsov > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > There is an inaccuracy in critical worker termination detection, and > > I'm > > > > working on a fix right now, see [1]. Also, we have trivial yet > > important > > > > fix [2], this one is ready to merge. > > > > > > > > I deem both should get to 2.7. Any objections? > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9744 > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9723 > > > > > > > > пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 13:13, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > We can consider this thread as an almost healthy discussion about > SG > > > > > inclusion to 2.7. > > > > > > > > > > For the future, I encourage all Igniters to discuss things before > > agreement > > > > > on dev.list instead of trying to log 'some pre-build agreements' > > here. BTW > > > > > such logged 'agreements' are not always valid. > > > > > > > > > > Dev list is not a log of community actions; it is the principal > > place where > > > > > discussion runs. I sincerely hope all similar decisions will be > > building on > > > > > the dev list. > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > вс, 30 сент. 2018 г. в 10:49, Nikolay Izhikov >: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, guys. > > > > > > > > > > > > I moved SG tasks to 2.8. > > > > > > > > > > > > В Сб, 29/09/2018 в 17:11 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет: > > > > > > > I fully support Dmitry's concerns. I do not see a single chance > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > Service > > > > > > > Grid to be included into 2.7 scope, but we are still keeping > hope > > > > > > > > > > alive. > > > > > > > What for? Our experience shows, that any feature involving > > consensus > > > > > > > algorithms typically take weeks to be finalized after initial > > public > > > > > > > review. Yes, it is possible that at some day in October we will > > see it > > > > > > > completed, but what about testing? What about regressions with > > other > > > > > > > components? Let me reming you that from Monday a lot of effort
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Igniters, Please use this filter, as it properly handles tickets without components: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20(component%20is%20null%20or%20component%20not%20in%20(documentation)))%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 6:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > Hello, Igniters. > > I announce scope freeze for an Apache Ignite 2.7 release. > > It means: > > 1. We add to 2.7 only critical bugs. > 2. We merge to 2.7 branch only previously announces features. > 3. I expect we should exclude or *MERGE ALL TASKS FOR 2.7 DUE TO OCTOBER > 10*. > So the *October 10 is DEADLINE* for new features. > > Thoughts? > > For now we have 34 In Progress tickets planned to 2.7 version [1]. > So is you assigned to any of this ticker friendly reminder #1, *the > deadline is near :)*. > > [1] > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8803?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20component%20!%3D%20documentation%20)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 > > > > В Пн, 01/10/2018 в 16:13 +0300, Andrey Gura пишет: > > Agree with Andrey. > > > > IGNITE-9723 will be merged to ignite-2.7 branch soon. > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:56 PM Andrey Kuznetsov > wrote: > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > There is an inaccuracy in critical worker termination detection, and > I'm > > > working on a fix right now, see [1]. Also, we have trivial yet > important > > > fix [2], this one is ready to merge. > > > > > > I deem both should get to 2.7. Any objections? > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9744 > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9723 > > > > > > пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 13:13, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > We can consider this thread as an almost healthy discussion about SG > > > > inclusion to 2.7. > > > > > > > > For the future, I encourage all Igniters to discuss things before > agreement > > > > on dev.list instead of trying to log 'some pre-build agreements' > here. BTW > > > > such logged 'agreements' are not always valid. > > > > > > > > Dev list is not a log of community actions; it is the principal > place where > > > > discussion runs. I sincerely hope all similar decisions will be > building on > > > > the dev list. > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > вс, 30 сент. 2018 г. в 10:49, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > > > > Hello, guys. > > > > > > > > > > I moved SG tasks to 2.8. > > > > > > > > > > В Сб, 29/09/2018 в 17:11 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет: > > > > > > I fully support Dmitry's concerns. I do not see a single chance > for > > > > > > > > > > Service > > > > > > Grid to be included into 2.7 scope, but we are still keeping hope > > > > > > > > alive. > > > > > > What for? Our experience shows, that any feature involving > consensus > > > > > > algorithms typically take weeks to be finalized after initial > public > > > > > > review. Yes, it is possible that at some day in October we will > see it > > > > > > completed, but what about testing? What about regressions with > other > > > > > > components? Let me reming you that from Monday a lot of efforts > will be > > > > > > > > > > put > > > > > > into project stabilization. This is the sole purpose of that > > > > > > > > pre-release > > > > > > phase. Accepting a patch with deep rework of Ignite internals in > the > > > > > > > > > > middle > > > > > > of that process, means that our effrots will be lost. This is > simply a > > > > > > matter of respect to contributor's time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Another problem is that this false hope puts us at rush. Rush > during > > > > > > design, development, rev
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hi Nikolay,
Thank you for announcing that we entered this new stage of release. I
believe it is a paramount thing to keep community members posted.
BTW, this link worked for me
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=(project%20%3D%20'Ignite'%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20('2.7')%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20component%20!%3D%20documentation%20)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
I noticed that we have 5 MVCC tickets to 2.7 still not assigned. I hope
contributors will assign these tickets.
Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov
пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 18:17, Nikolay Izhikov :
> Hello, Igniters.
>
> I announce scope freeze for an Apache Ignite 2.7 release.
>
> It means:
>
> 1. We add to 2.7 only critical bugs.
> 2. We merge to 2.7 branch only previously announces features.
> 3. I expect we should exclude or *MERGE ALL TASKS FOR 2.7 DUE TO OCTOBER
> 10*.
> So the *October 10 is DEADLINE* for new features.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> For now we have 34 In Progress tickets planned to 2.7 version [1].
> So is you assigned to any of this ticker friendly reminder #1, *the
> deadline is near :)*.
>
> [1]
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8803?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20component%20!%3D%20documentation%20)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
>
>
>
> В Пн, 01/10/2018 в 16:13 +0300, Andrey Gura пишет:
> > Agree with Andrey.
> >
> > IGNITE-9723 will be merged to ignite-2.7 branch soon.
> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:56 PM Andrey Kuznetsov
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > There is an inaccuracy in critical worker termination detection, and
> I'm
> > > working on a fix right now, see [1]. Also, we have trivial yet
> important
> > > fix [2], this one is ready to merge.
> > >
> > > I deem both should get to 2.7. Any objections?
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9744
> > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9723
> > >
> > > пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 13:13, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > We can consider this thread as an almost healthy discussion about SG
> > > > inclusion to 2.7.
> > > >
> > > > For the future, I encourage all Igniters to discuss things before
> agreement
> > > > on dev.list instead of trying to log 'some pre-build agreements'
> here. BTW
> > > > such logged 'agreements' are not always valid.
> > > >
> > > > Dev list is not a log of community actions; it is the principal
> place where
> > > > discussion runs. I sincerely hope all similar decisions will be
> building on
> > > > the dev list.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >
> > > > вс, 30 сент. 2018 г. в 10:49, Nikolay Izhikov :
> > > >
> > > > > Hello, guys.
> > > > >
> > > > > I moved SG tasks to 2.8.
> > > > >
> > > > > В Сб, 29/09/2018 в 17:11 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > > > > I fully support Dmitry's concerns. I do not see a single chance
> for
> > > > >
> > > > > Service
> > > > > > Grid to be included into 2.7 scope, but we are still keeping hope
> > > >
> > > > alive.
> > > > > > What for? Our experience shows, that any feature involving
> consensus
> > > > > > algorithms typically take weeks to be finalized after initial
> public
> > > > > > review. Yes, it is possible that at some day in October we will
> see it
> > > > > > completed, but what about testing? What about regressions with
> other
> > > > > > components? Let me reming you that from Monday a lot of efforts
> will be
> > > > >
> > > > > put
> > > > > > into project stabilization. This is the sole purpose of that
> > > >
> > > > pre-release
> > > > > > phase. Accepting a patch with deep rework of Ignite internals in
> the
> > > > >
> > > > > middle
> > > > > > of that process, means that our effrots will be lost. This is
> simply a
> > > > > > matter of respect to contributor's time.
>
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hello, Igniters. I announce scope freeze for an Apache Ignite 2.7 release. It means: 1. We add to 2.7 only critical bugs. 2. We merge to 2.7 branch only previously announces features. 3. I expect we should exclude or *MERGE ALL TASKS FOR 2.7 DUE TO OCTOBER 10*. So the *October 10 is DEADLINE* for new features. Thoughts? For now we have 34 In Progress tickets planned to 2.7 version [1]. So is you assigned to any of this ticker friendly reminder #1, *the deadline is near :)*. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8803?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20component%20!%3D%20documentation%20)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 В Пн, 01/10/2018 в 16:13 +0300, Andrey Gura пишет: > Agree with Andrey. > > IGNITE-9723 will be merged to ignite-2.7 branch soon. > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:56 PM Andrey Kuznetsov wrote: > > > > Igniters, > > > > There is an inaccuracy in critical worker termination detection, and I'm > > working on a fix right now, see [1]. Also, we have trivial yet important > > fix [2], this one is ready to merge. > > > > I deem both should get to 2.7. Any objections? > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9744 > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9723 > > > > пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 13:13, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > We can consider this thread as an almost healthy discussion about SG > > > inclusion to 2.7. > > > > > > For the future, I encourage all Igniters to discuss things before > > > agreement > > > on dev.list instead of trying to log 'some pre-build agreements' here. BTW > > > such logged 'agreements' are not always valid. > > > > > > Dev list is not a log of community actions; it is the principal place > > > where > > > discussion runs. I sincerely hope all similar decisions will be building > > > on > > > the dev list. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > вс, 30 сент. 2018 г. в 10:49, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > > Hello, guys. > > > > > > > > I moved SG tasks to 2.8. > > > > > > > > В Сб, 29/09/2018 в 17:11 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет: > > > > > I fully support Dmitry's concerns. I do not see a single chance for > > > > > > > > Service > > > > > Grid to be included into 2.7 scope, but we are still keeping hope > > > > > > alive. > > > > > What for? Our experience shows, that any feature involving consensus > > > > > algorithms typically take weeks to be finalized after initial public > > > > > review. Yes, it is possible that at some day in October we will see it > > > > > completed, but what about testing? What about regressions with other > > > > > components? Let me reming you that from Monday a lot of efforts will > > > > > be > > > > > > > > put > > > > > into project stabilization. This is the sole purpose of that > > > > > > pre-release > > > > > phase. Accepting a patch with deep rework of Ignite internals in the > > > > > > > > middle > > > > > of that process, means that our effrots will be lost. This is simply a > > > > > matter of respect to contributor's time. > > > > > > > > > > Another problem is that this false hope puts us at rush. Rush during > > > > > design, development, review, testing. Result is known - bad features, > > > > > > > > which > > > > > makes damage to the project. > > > > > > > > > > So my question is - why don't we just want to move it to AI 2.8 right > > > > > > > > now? > > > > > Feature is big, feature is very far from being ready. This simple > > > > > > action > > > > > immediately shifts the focus from dates to quality of the product, and > > > > > remove any risks that potential merge will defeat stabilization > > > > > effrots > > > > > > > > of > > > > > other contributors. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:32 AM Vyacheslav Daradur < > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Agree with Andrey. IGNITE-9723 will be merged to ignite-2.7 branch soon. On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:56 PM Andrey Kuznetsov wrote: > > Igniters, > > There is an inaccuracy in critical worker termination detection, and I'm > working on a fix right now, see [1]. Also, we have trivial yet important > fix [2], this one is ready to merge. > > I deem both should get to 2.7. Any objections? > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9744 > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9723 > > пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 13:13, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > Folks, > > > > We can consider this thread as an almost healthy discussion about SG > > inclusion to 2.7. > > > > For the future, I encourage all Igniters to discuss things before agreement > > on dev.list instead of trying to log 'some pre-build agreements' here. BTW > > such logged 'agreements' are not always valid. > > > > Dev list is not a log of community actions; it is the principal place where > > discussion runs. I sincerely hope all similar decisions will be building on > > the dev list. > > > > Sincerely, > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > вс, 30 сент. 2018 г. в 10:49, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > Hello, guys. > > > > > > I moved SG tasks to 2.8. > > > > > > В Сб, 29/09/2018 в 17:11 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет: > > > > I fully support Dmitry's concerns. I do not see a single chance for > > > Service > > > > Grid to be included into 2.7 scope, but we are still keeping hope > > alive. > > > > What for? Our experience shows, that any feature involving consensus > > > > algorithms typically take weeks to be finalized after initial public > > > > review. Yes, it is possible that at some day in October we will see it > > > > completed, but what about testing? What about regressions with other > > > > components? Let me reming you that from Monday a lot of efforts will be > > > put > > > > into project stabilization. This is the sole purpose of that > > pre-release > > > > phase. Accepting a patch with deep rework of Ignite internals in the > > > middle > > > > of that process, means that our effrots will be lost. This is simply a > > > > matter of respect to contributor's time. > > > > > > > > Another problem is that this false hope puts us at rush. Rush during > > > > design, development, review, testing. Result is known - bad features, > > > which > > > > makes damage to the project. > > > > > > > > So my question is - why don't we just want to move it to AI 2.8 right > > > now? > > > > Feature is big, feature is very far from being ready. This simple > > action > > > > immediately shifts the focus from dates to quality of the product, and > > > > remove any risks that potential merge will defeat stabilization effrots > > > of > > > > other contributors. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:32 AM Vyacheslav Daradur < > > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > Hot redeployment and versioning will not be implemented in phase 1, > > > > > but it is scheduled once it is finished. > > > > > > > > > > Here is an umbrella ticket [1] to track phase 1 scope. > > > > > > > > > > It includes very few new features, but we completely rework component > > > > > to improve guarantees to be more reliable and we build the base for > > > > > new features. > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607 > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:38 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure I can agree. SG redesign includes: > > > > > > - hot redeployment > > > > > > - versioning > > > > > > > > > > > > In my experience, features like these take about 1 month to test > > > properly > > > > > > and fix all the bugs, including redeployment tests and restart > > tests > > > on > > > > > > larger topologies, together with overnight runs. If this type of > > > testing > > > > > > has not been performed, I think it would be unreasonable to expect > > > this > > > > > > feature making it into the release. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can someone comment on the testing? > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:38 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay, because I think you're a do'er, but not a commenter, > > like > > > me, > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > example, I can trust your opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will join review if I have spare cycles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 20:34, Denis Magda : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for stepping in and giving more context. In general, I'm > > > > > > > > > > fully for > > > > > > > > your proposal below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My vote goes to option *a*. > > > > > > > > > I think we should release 2.7 with the bunch of new cool > > > features. > > > > > > > > > *AND* we should plan 2.8 release at the en
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Igniters, There is an inaccuracy in critical worker termination detection, and I'm working on a fix right now, see [1]. Also, we have trivial yet important fix [2], this one is ready to merge. I deem both should get to 2.7. Any objections? [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9744 [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9723 пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 13:13, Dmitriy Pavlov : > Folks, > > We can consider this thread as an almost healthy discussion about SG > inclusion to 2.7. > > For the future, I encourage all Igniters to discuss things before agreement > on dev.list instead of trying to log 'some pre-build agreements' here. BTW > such logged 'agreements' are not always valid. > > Dev list is not a log of community actions; it is the principal place where > discussion runs. I sincerely hope all similar decisions will be building on > the dev list. > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > вс, 30 сент. 2018 г. в 10:49, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > Hello, guys. > > > > I moved SG tasks to 2.8. > > > > В Сб, 29/09/2018 в 17:11 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет: > > > I fully support Dmitry's concerns. I do not see a single chance for > > Service > > > Grid to be included into 2.7 scope, but we are still keeping hope > alive. > > > What for? Our experience shows, that any feature involving consensus > > > algorithms typically take weeks to be finalized after initial public > > > review. Yes, it is possible that at some day in October we will see it > > > completed, but what about testing? What about regressions with other > > > components? Let me reming you that from Monday a lot of efforts will be > > put > > > into project stabilization. This is the sole purpose of that > pre-release > > > phase. Accepting a patch with deep rework of Ignite internals in the > > middle > > > of that process, means that our effrots will be lost. This is simply a > > > matter of respect to contributor's time. > > > > > > Another problem is that this false hope puts us at rush. Rush during > > > design, development, review, testing. Result is known - bad features, > > which > > > makes damage to the project. > > > > > > So my question is - why don't we just want to move it to AI 2.8 right > > now? > > > Feature is big, feature is very far from being ready. This simple > action > > > immediately shifts the focus from dates to quality of the product, and > > > remove any risks that potential merge will defeat stabilization effrots > > of > > > other contributors. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:32 AM Vyacheslav Daradur < > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > Hot redeployment and versioning will not be implemented in phase 1, > > > > but it is scheduled once it is finished. > > > > > > > > Here is an umbrella ticket [1] to track phase 1 scope. > > > > > > > > It includes very few new features, but we completely rework component > > > > to improve guarantees to be more reliable and we build the base for > > > > new features. > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607 > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:38 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure I can agree. SG redesign includes: > > > > > - hot redeployment > > > > > - versioning > > > > > > > > > > In my experience, features like these take about 1 month to test > > properly > > > > > and fix all the bugs, including redeployment tests and restart > tests > > on > > > > > larger topologies, together with overnight runs. If this type of > > testing > > > > > has not been performed, I think it would be unreasonable to expect > > this > > > > > feature making it into the release. > > > > > > > > > > Can someone comment on the testing? > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:38 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay, because I think you're a do'er, but not a commenter, > like > > me, > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > example, I can trust your opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > I will join review if I have spare cycles. > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 20:34, Denis Magda : > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for stepping in and giving more context. In general, I'm > > > > > > > > fully for > > > > > > > your proposal below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My vote goes to option *a*. > > > > > > > > I think we should release 2.7 with the bunch of new cool > > features. > > > > > > > > *AND* we should plan 2.8 release at the end of the year with > SG > > > > > > > > > > > > redesign > > > > > > > > and MVCC stabilization tasks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Nikolay Izhikov < > > > > > > > > nizhi...@apache.org> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we sh
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Folks, We can consider this thread as an almost healthy discussion about SG inclusion to 2.7. For the future, I encourage all Igniters to discuss things before agreement on dev.list instead of trying to log 'some pre-build agreements' here. BTW such logged 'agreements' are not always valid. Dev list is not a log of community actions; it is the principal place where discussion runs. I sincerely hope all similar decisions will be building on the dev list. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov вс, 30 сент. 2018 г. в 10:49, Nikolay Izhikov : > Hello, guys. > > I moved SG tasks to 2.8. > > В Сб, 29/09/2018 в 17:11 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет: > > I fully support Dmitry's concerns. I do not see a single chance for > Service > > Grid to be included into 2.7 scope, but we are still keeping hope alive. > > What for? Our experience shows, that any feature involving consensus > > algorithms typically take weeks to be finalized after initial public > > review. Yes, it is possible that at some day in October we will see it > > completed, but what about testing? What about regressions with other > > components? Let me reming you that from Monday a lot of efforts will be > put > > into project stabilization. This is the sole purpose of that pre-release > > phase. Accepting a patch with deep rework of Ignite internals in the > middle > > of that process, means that our effrots will be lost. This is simply a > > matter of respect to contributor's time. > > > > Another problem is that this false hope puts us at rush. Rush during > > design, development, review, testing. Result is known - bad features, > which > > makes damage to the project. > > > > So my question is - why don't we just want to move it to AI 2.8 right > now? > > Feature is big, feature is very far from being ready. This simple action > > immediately shifts the focus from dates to quality of the product, and > > remove any risks that potential merge will defeat stabilization effrots > of > > other contributors. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:32 AM Vyacheslav Daradur > > wrote: > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > Hot redeployment and versioning will not be implemented in phase 1, > > > but it is scheduled once it is finished. > > > > > > Here is an umbrella ticket [1] to track phase 1 scope. > > > > > > It includes very few new features, but we completely rework component > > > to improve guarantees to be more reliable and we build the base for > > > new features. > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607 > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:38 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I am not sure I can agree. SG redesign includes: > > > > - hot redeployment > > > > - versioning > > > > > > > > In my experience, features like these take about 1 month to test > properly > > > > and fix all the bugs, including redeployment tests and restart tests > on > > > > larger topologies, together with overnight runs. If this type of > testing > > > > has not been performed, I think it would be unreasonable to expect > this > > > > feature making it into the release. > > > > > > > > Can someone comment on the testing? > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:38 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Nikolay, because I think you're a do'er, but not a commenter, like > me, > > > > > > for > > > > > example, I can trust your opinion. > > > > > > > > > > I will join review if I have spare cycles. > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 20:34, Denis Magda : > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for stepping in and giving more context. In general, I'm > > > > > > fully for > > > > > > your proposal below: > > > > > > > > > > > > My vote goes to option *a*. > > > > > > > I think we should release 2.7 with the bunch of new cool > features. > > > > > > > *AND* we should plan 2.8 release at the end of the year with SG > > > > > > > > > > redesign > > > > > > > and MVCC stabilization tasks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Nikolay Izhikov < > > > > > > nizhi...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we shouldn't put so many emotions in discussion of any > > > > > > > contribution. > > > > > > > Even so big and important as SG redesign. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The crucial point we all agreed about: Service Grid redesign a > big > > > > > > > > > > > > feature > > > > > > > that can significally improve Ignite. > > > > > > > We all want to have it in the product. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me write my vision of the current task state: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Design of SG is discussed *and aligned* both: privately with > > > > > > Ignite > > > > > > > experts(Vladimir Ozerov, Alexey Goncharyuk, Anton Vinogradov, > Denis > > > > > > > Mekhanikov) > > > > > > > and publicl
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hello, guys. I moved SG tasks to 2.8. В Сб, 29/09/2018 в 17:11 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет: > I fully support Dmitry's concerns. I do not see a single chance for Service > Grid to be included into 2.7 scope, but we are still keeping hope alive. > What for? Our experience shows, that any feature involving consensus > algorithms typically take weeks to be finalized after initial public > review. Yes, it is possible that at some day in October we will see it > completed, but what about testing? What about regressions with other > components? Let me reming you that from Monday a lot of efforts will be put > into project stabilization. This is the sole purpose of that pre-release > phase. Accepting a patch with deep rework of Ignite internals in the middle > of that process, means that our effrots will be lost. This is simply a > matter of respect to contributor's time. > > Another problem is that this false hope puts us at rush. Rush during > design, development, review, testing. Result is known - bad features, which > makes damage to the project. > > So my question is - why don't we just want to move it to AI 2.8 right now? > Feature is big, feature is very far from being ready. This simple action > immediately shifts the focus from dates to quality of the product, and > remove any risks that potential merge will defeat stabilization effrots of > other contributors. > > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:32 AM Vyacheslav Daradur > wrote: > > > Dmitriy, > > > > Hot redeployment and versioning will not be implemented in phase 1, > > but it is scheduled once it is finished. > > > > Here is an umbrella ticket [1] to track phase 1 scope. > > > > It includes very few new features, but we completely rework component > > to improve guarantees to be more reliable and we build the base for > > new features. > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607 > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:38 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan > > wrote: > > > > > > I am not sure I can agree. SG redesign includes: > > > - hot redeployment > > > - versioning > > > > > > In my experience, features like these take about 1 month to test properly > > > and fix all the bugs, including redeployment tests and restart tests on > > > larger topologies, together with overnight runs. If this type of testing > > > has not been performed, I think it would be unreasonable to expect this > > > feature making it into the release. > > > > > > Can someone comment on the testing? > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:38 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Nikolay, because I think you're a do'er, but not a commenter, like me, > > > > for > > > > example, I can trust your opinion. > > > > > > > > I will join review if I have spare cycles. > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 20:34, Denis Magda : > > > > > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for stepping in and giving more context. In general, I'm > > > > fully for > > > > > your proposal below: > > > > > > > > > > My vote goes to option *a*. > > > > > > I think we should release 2.7 with the bunch of new cool features. > > > > > > *AND* we should plan 2.8 release at the end of the year with SG > > > > > > > > redesign > > > > > > and MVCC stabilization tasks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Nikolay Izhikov < > > > > nizhi...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we shouldn't put so many emotions in discussion of any > > > > > > contribution. > > > > > > Even so big and important as SG redesign. > > > > > > > > > > > > The crucial point we all agreed about: Service Grid redesign a big > > > > > > > > > > feature > > > > > > that can significally improve Ignite. > > > > > > We all want to have it in the product. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me write my vision of the current task state: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Design of SG is discussed *and aligned* both: privately with > > > > Ignite > > > > > > experts(Vladimir Ozerov, Alexey Goncharyuk, Anton Vinogradov, Denis > > > > > > Mekhanikov) > > > > > > and publicly on dev-list. This task is done. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Current PR state - *on my review*. > > > > > > I spend some time with this contribution and gave Vyacheslav a > > > > > > > > feedback. > > > > > > I expect he can fix my comments in a day or two. > > > > > > Seem we can ask of Anton Vinogradov review on the beginning of next > > > > > > > > week. > > > > > > > > > > > > If Dmitriy or any community member wants to help *by doing things, > > > > not > > > > > > discussing them on dev-list*. > > > > > > Please, join to the review - you are welcome. PR is here [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. I think, we have two mutually exclusive options regarding of > > > > release > > > > > > 2.7 > > > > > > a. We release 2.7 in planned dates. > > > > > > b. We include SG in release scope
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
I fully support Dmitry's concerns. I do not see a single chance for Service Grid to be included into 2.7 scope, but we are still keeping hope alive. What for? Our experience shows, that any feature involving consensus algorithms typically take weeks to be finalized after initial public review. Yes, it is possible that at some day in October we will see it completed, but what about testing? What about regressions with other components? Let me reming you that from Monday a lot of efforts will be put into project stabilization. This is the sole purpose of that pre-release phase. Accepting a patch with deep rework of Ignite internals in the middle of that process, means that our effrots will be lost. This is simply a matter of respect to contributor's time. Another problem is that this false hope puts us at rush. Rush during design, development, review, testing. Result is known - bad features, which makes damage to the project. So my question is - why don't we just want to move it to AI 2.8 right now? Feature is big, feature is very far from being ready. This simple action immediately shifts the focus from dates to quality of the product, and remove any risks that potential merge will defeat stabilization effrots of other contributors. On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:32 AM Vyacheslav Daradur wrote: > Dmitriy, > > Hot redeployment and versioning will not be implemented in phase 1, > but it is scheduled once it is finished. > > Here is an umbrella ticket [1] to track phase 1 scope. > > It includes very few new features, but we completely rework component > to improve guarantees to be more reliable and we build the base for > new features. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607 > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:38 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan > wrote: > > > > I am not sure I can agree. SG redesign includes: > > - hot redeployment > > - versioning > > > > In my experience, features like these take about 1 month to test properly > > and fix all the bugs, including redeployment tests and restart tests on > > larger topologies, together with overnight runs. If this type of testing > > has not been performed, I think it would be unreasonable to expect this > > feature making it into the release. > > > > Can someone comment on the testing? > > > > D. > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:38 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > > wrote: > > > > > Nikolay, because I think you're a do'er, but not a commenter, like me, > for > > > example, I can trust your opinion. > > > > > > I will join review if I have spare cycles. > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 20:34, Denis Magda : > > > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > Thanks for stepping in and giving more context. In general, I'm > fully for > > > > your proposal below: > > > > > > > > My vote goes to option *a*. > > > > > I think we should release 2.7 with the bunch of new cool features. > > > > > *AND* we should plan 2.8 release at the end of the year with SG > > > redesign > > > > > and MVCC stabilization tasks. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Nikolay Izhikov < > nizhi...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > I think we shouldn't put so many emotions in discussion of any > > > > > contribution. > > > > > Even so big and important as SG redesign. > > > > > > > > > > The crucial point we all agreed about: Service Grid redesign a big > > > > feature > > > > > that can significally improve Ignite. > > > > > We all want to have it in the product. > > > > > > > > > > Let me write my vision of the current task state: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Design of SG is discussed *and aligned* both: privately with > Ignite > > > > > experts(Vladimir Ozerov, Alexey Goncharyuk, Anton Vinogradov, Denis > > > > > Mekhanikov) > > > > > and publicly on dev-list. This task is done. > > > > > > > > > > 2. Current PR state - *on my review*. > > > > > I spend some time with this contribution and gave Vyacheslav a > > > feedback. > > > > > I expect he can fix my comments in a day or two. > > > > > Seem we can ask of Anton Vinogradov review on the beginning of next > > > week. > > > > > > > > > > If Dmitriy or any community member wants to help *by doing things, > not > > > > > discussing them on dev-list*. > > > > > Please, join to the review - you are welcome. PR is here [1] > > > > > > > > > > 3. I think, we have two mutually exclusive options regarding of > release > > > > > 2.7 > > > > > a. We release 2.7 in planned dates. > > > > > b. We include SG in release scope. > > > > > > > > > > My vote goes to option *a*. > > > > > I think we should release 2.7 with the bunch of new cool features. > > > > > *AND* we should plan 2.8 release at the end of the year with SG > > > redesign > > > > > and MVCC stabilization tasks. > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, while we preparing release a lot of things can happen. > > > > > Let's come back to discussion of SG release version *when it will > be > > > > ready > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Dmitriy, Hot redeployment and versioning will not be implemented in phase 1, but it is scheduled once it is finished. Here is an umbrella ticket [1] to track phase 1 scope. It includes very few new features, but we completely rework component to improve guarantees to be more reliable and we build the base for new features. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607 On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:38 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > I am not sure I can agree. SG redesign includes: > - hot redeployment > - versioning > > In my experience, features like these take about 1 month to test properly > and fix all the bugs, including redeployment tests and restart tests on > larger topologies, together with overnight runs. If this type of testing > has not been performed, I think it would be unreasonable to expect this > feature making it into the release. > > Can someone comment on the testing? > > D. > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:38 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > Nikolay, because I think you're a do'er, but not a commenter, like me, for > > example, I can trust your opinion. > > > > I will join review if I have spare cycles. > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 20:34, Denis Magda : > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > Thanks for stepping in and giving more context. In general, I'm fully for > > > your proposal below: > > > > > > My vote goes to option *a*. > > > > I think we should release 2.7 with the bunch of new cool features. > > > > *AND* we should plan 2.8 release at the end of the year with SG > > redesign > > > > and MVCC stabilization tasks. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Denis > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Nikolay Izhikov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > I think we shouldn't put so many emotions in discussion of any > > > > contribution. > > > > Even so big and important as SG redesign. > > > > > > > > The crucial point we all agreed about: Service Grid redesign a big > > > feature > > > > that can significally improve Ignite. > > > > We all want to have it in the product. > > > > > > > > Let me write my vision of the current task state: > > > > > > > > 1. Design of SG is discussed *and aligned* both: privately with Ignite > > > > experts(Vladimir Ozerov, Alexey Goncharyuk, Anton Vinogradov, Denis > > > > Mekhanikov) > > > > and publicly on dev-list. This task is done. > > > > > > > > 2. Current PR state - *on my review*. > > > > I spend some time with this contribution and gave Vyacheslav a > > feedback. > > > > I expect he can fix my comments in a day or two. > > > > Seem we can ask of Anton Vinogradov review on the beginning of next > > week. > > > > > > > > If Dmitriy or any community member wants to help *by doing things, not > > > > discussing them on dev-list*. > > > > Please, join to the review - you are welcome. PR is here [1] > > > > > > > > 3. I think, we have two mutually exclusive options regarding of release > > > > 2.7 > > > > a. We release 2.7 in planned dates. > > > > b. We include SG in release scope. > > > > > > > > My vote goes to option *a*. > > > > I think we should release 2.7 with the bunch of new cool features. > > > > *AND* we should plan 2.8 release at the end of the year with SG > > redesign > > > > and MVCC stabilization tasks. > > > > > > > > Anyway, while we preparing release a lot of things can happen. > > > > Let's come back to discussion of SG release version *when it will be > > > ready > > > > to be merged to master*. > > > > > > > > Guys, does it makes sense for you? > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434 > > > > > > > > В Пт, 28/09/2018 в 19:47 +0300, Dmitriy Pavlov пишет: > > > > > Hi Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > The design is aligned totally. The thread you mention was not named > > > > > properly. > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me some community members are trying to take over the > > > > community > > > > > and lead it instead of doing. > > > > > > > > > > As a member of the Apache community, I value Do-ocracy and power of > > > those > > > > > who do, but not just disagree. There are no leaders in open source, > > > just > > > > > do'ers. > > > > > > > > > > By do'ers here I mean Nikolay and Vyacheslav. For me, their > > conclusion > > > > has > > > > > more weight here. If Vladimir is ready to lead an additional release > > > for > > > > SG > > > > > and SG developers agree, it works for me. > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 19:39, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > We agreed in the beginning of this thread that Service Grid changes > > > > are not > > > > > > going to make the release because the community still did not > > approve > > > > the > > > > > > design. Nothing has changed since. I have not seen any design > > > > discussions. > > > > > > At this point, I have no confidence that the Service Grid changes > > > will > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
I am not sure I can agree. SG redesign includes: - hot redeployment - versioning In my experience, features like these take about 1 month to test properly and fix all the bugs, including redeployment tests and restart tests on larger topologies, together with overnight runs. If this type of testing has not been performed, I think it would be unreasonable to expect this feature making it into the release. Can someone comment on the testing? D. On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:38 AM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > Nikolay, because I think you're a do'er, but not a commenter, like me, for > example, I can trust your opinion. > > I will join review if I have spare cycles. > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 20:34, Denis Magda : > > > Nikolay, > > > > Thanks for stepping in and giving more context. In general, I'm fully for > > your proposal below: > > > > My vote goes to option *a*. > > > I think we should release 2.7 with the bunch of new cool features. > > > *AND* we should plan 2.8 release at the end of the year with SG > redesign > > > and MVCC stabilization tasks. > > > > > > -- > > Denis > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Nikolay Izhikov > > wrote: > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > I think we shouldn't put so many emotions in discussion of any > > > contribution. > > > Even so big and important as SG redesign. > > > > > > The crucial point we all agreed about: Service Grid redesign a big > > feature > > > that can significally improve Ignite. > > > We all want to have it in the product. > > > > > > Let me write my vision of the current task state: > > > > > > 1. Design of SG is discussed *and aligned* both: privately with Ignite > > > experts(Vladimir Ozerov, Alexey Goncharyuk, Anton Vinogradov, Denis > > > Mekhanikov) > > > and publicly on dev-list. This task is done. > > > > > > 2. Current PR state - *on my review*. > > > I spend some time with this contribution and gave Vyacheslav a > feedback. > > > I expect he can fix my comments in a day or two. > > > Seem we can ask of Anton Vinogradov review on the beginning of next > week. > > > > > > If Dmitriy or any community member wants to help *by doing things, not > > > discussing them on dev-list*. > > > Please, join to the review - you are welcome. PR is here [1] > > > > > > 3. I think, we have two mutually exclusive options regarding of release > > > 2.7 > > > a. We release 2.7 in planned dates. > > > b. We include SG in release scope. > > > > > > My vote goes to option *a*. > > > I think we should release 2.7 with the bunch of new cool features. > > > *AND* we should plan 2.8 release at the end of the year with SG > redesign > > > and MVCC stabilization tasks. > > > > > > Anyway, while we preparing release a lot of things can happen. > > > Let's come back to discussion of SG release version *when it will be > > ready > > > to be merged to master*. > > > > > > Guys, does it makes sense for you? > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434 > > > > > > В Пт, 28/09/2018 в 19:47 +0300, Dmitriy Pavlov пишет: > > > > Hi Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > The design is aligned totally. The thread you mention was not named > > > > properly. > > > > > > > > It seems to me some community members are trying to take over the > > > community > > > > and lead it instead of doing. > > > > > > > > As a member of the Apache community, I value Do-ocracy and power of > > those > > > > who do, but not just disagree. There are no leaders in open source, > > just > > > > do'ers. > > > > > > > > By do'ers here I mean Nikolay and Vyacheslav. For me, their > conclusion > > > has > > > > more weight here. If Vladimir is ready to lead an additional release > > for > > > SG > > > > and SG developers agree, it works for me. > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 19:39, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > dsetrak...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > We agreed in the beginning of this thread that Service Grid changes > > > are not > > > > > going to make the release because the community still did not > approve > > > the > > > > > design. Nothing has changed since. I have not seen any design > > > discussions. > > > > > At this point, I have no confidence that the Service Grid changes > > will > > > make > > > > > it into the 2.8 release. The 2.7 release seems out of question > > > altogether. > > > > > > > > > > Also, Nikolay is a release manager. We should let him drive the > > > release. To > > > > > my knowledge, he is doing a great job and the release is going > > > according to > > > > > the schedule he proposed. > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:31 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitriy, Vladimir, > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest we stop this nonsense with release dates-pushing > because > > of > > > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > open question. > > > > > > > > > > > > Just because you disagree
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Nikolay, because I think you're a do'er, but not a commenter, like me, for example, I can trust your opinion. I will join review if I have spare cycles. пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 20:34, Denis Magda : > Nikolay, > > Thanks for stepping in and giving more context. In general, I'm fully for > your proposal below: > > My vote goes to option *a*. > > I think we should release 2.7 with the bunch of new cool features. > > *AND* we should plan 2.8 release at the end of the year with SG redesign > > and MVCC stabilization tasks. > > > -- > Denis > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Nikolay Izhikov > wrote: > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > I think we shouldn't put so many emotions in discussion of any > > contribution. > > Even so big and important as SG redesign. > > > > The crucial point we all agreed about: Service Grid redesign a big > feature > > that can significally improve Ignite. > > We all want to have it in the product. > > > > Let me write my vision of the current task state: > > > > 1. Design of SG is discussed *and aligned* both: privately with Ignite > > experts(Vladimir Ozerov, Alexey Goncharyuk, Anton Vinogradov, Denis > > Mekhanikov) > > and publicly on dev-list. This task is done. > > > > 2. Current PR state - *on my review*. > > I spend some time with this contribution and gave Vyacheslav a feedback. > > I expect he can fix my comments in a day or two. > > Seem we can ask of Anton Vinogradov review on the beginning of next week. > > > > If Dmitriy or any community member wants to help *by doing things, not > > discussing them on dev-list*. > > Please, join to the review - you are welcome. PR is here [1] > > > > 3. I think, we have two mutually exclusive options regarding of release > > 2.7 > > a. We release 2.7 in planned dates. > > b. We include SG in release scope. > > > > My vote goes to option *a*. > > I think we should release 2.7 with the bunch of new cool features. > > *AND* we should plan 2.8 release at the end of the year with SG redesign > > and MVCC stabilization tasks. > > > > Anyway, while we preparing release a lot of things can happen. > > Let's come back to discussion of SG release version *when it will be > ready > > to be merged to master*. > > > > Guys, does it makes sense for you? > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434 > > > > В Пт, 28/09/2018 в 19:47 +0300, Dmitriy Pavlov пишет: > > > Hi Dmitriy, > > > > > > The design is aligned totally. The thread you mention was not named > > > properly. > > > > > > It seems to me some community members are trying to take over the > > community > > > and lead it instead of doing. > > > > > > As a member of the Apache community, I value Do-ocracy and power of > those > > > who do, but not just disagree. There are no leaders in open source, > just > > > do'ers. > > > > > > By do'ers here I mean Nikolay and Vyacheslav. For me, their conclusion > > has > > > more weight here. If Vladimir is ready to lead an additional release > for > > SG > > > and SG developers agree, it works for me. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 19:39, Dmitriy Setrakyan >: > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > We agreed in the beginning of this thread that Service Grid changes > > are not > > > > going to make the release because the community still did not approve > > the > > > > design. Nothing has changed since. I have not seen any design > > discussions. > > > > At this point, I have no confidence that the Service Grid changes > will > > make > > > > it into the 2.8 release. The 2.7 release seems out of question > > altogether. > > > > > > > > Also, Nikolay is a release manager. We should let him drive the > > release. To > > > > my knowledge, he is doing a great job and the release is going > > according to > > > > the schedule he proposed. > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:31 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitriy, Vladimir, > > > > > > > > > > I suggest we stop this nonsense with release dates-pushing because > of > > > > > > > > some > > > > > open question. > > > > > > > > > > Just because you disagreed with any include/exclude something into > > scope, > > > > > does not mean that whole community disagreed. > > > > > > > > > > If folks will start a separate discussion with results of the > > review, I > > > > > > > > see > > > > > no reasons to reject their contribution, even if we need to revisit > > our > > > > > agreements and wait for a couple of days more. > > > > > > > > > > Am I missing some reason why dates are so fundamentally important > to > > you? > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 12:20, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > If services is not ready, which it is not, then we should include > > them > > > > > > > > > > into > > > > > > the next release. There is no need to force them into 2.7. I
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Nikolay, Thanks for stepping in and giving more context. In general, I'm fully for your proposal below: My vote goes to option *a*. > I think we should release 2.7 with the bunch of new cool features. > *AND* we should plan 2.8 release at the end of the year with SG redesign > and MVCC stabilization tasks. -- Denis On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > Hello, Igniters. > > I think we shouldn't put so many emotions in discussion of any > contribution. > Even so big and important as SG redesign. > > The crucial point we all agreed about: Service Grid redesign a big feature > that can significally improve Ignite. > We all want to have it in the product. > > Let me write my vision of the current task state: > > 1. Design of SG is discussed *and aligned* both: privately with Ignite > experts(Vladimir Ozerov, Alexey Goncharyuk, Anton Vinogradov, Denis > Mekhanikov) > and publicly on dev-list. This task is done. > > 2. Current PR state - *on my review*. > I spend some time with this contribution and gave Vyacheslav a feedback. > I expect he can fix my comments in a day or two. > Seem we can ask of Anton Vinogradov review on the beginning of next week. > > If Dmitriy or any community member wants to help *by doing things, not > discussing them on dev-list*. > Please, join to the review - you are welcome. PR is here [1] > > 3. I think, we have two mutually exclusive options regarding of release > 2.7 > a. We release 2.7 in planned dates. > b. We include SG in release scope. > > My vote goes to option *a*. > I think we should release 2.7 with the bunch of new cool features. > *AND* we should plan 2.8 release at the end of the year with SG redesign > and MVCC stabilization tasks. > > Anyway, while we preparing release a lot of things can happen. > Let's come back to discussion of SG release version *when it will be ready > to be merged to master*. > > Guys, does it makes sense for you? > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434 > > В Пт, 28/09/2018 в 19:47 +0300, Dmitriy Pavlov пишет: > > Hi Dmitriy, > > > > The design is aligned totally. The thread you mention was not named > > properly. > > > > It seems to me some community members are trying to take over the > community > > and lead it instead of doing. > > > > As a member of the Apache community, I value Do-ocracy and power of those > > who do, but not just disagree. There are no leaders in open source, just > > do'ers. > > > > By do'ers here I mean Nikolay and Vyacheslav. For me, their conclusion > has > > more weight here. If Vladimir is ready to lead an additional release for > SG > > and SG developers agree, it works for me. > > > > Sincerely, > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 19:39, Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > We agreed in the beginning of this thread that Service Grid changes > are not > > > going to make the release because the community still did not approve > the > > > design. Nothing has changed since. I have not seen any design > discussions. > > > At this point, I have no confidence that the Service Grid changes will > make > > > it into the 2.8 release. The 2.7 release seems out of question > altogether. > > > > > > Also, Nikolay is a release manager. We should let him drive the > release. To > > > my knowledge, he is doing a great job and the release is going > according to > > > the schedule he proposed. > > > > > > D. > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:31 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Dmitriy, Vladimir, > > > > > > > > I suggest we stop this nonsense with release dates-pushing because of > > > > > > some > > > > open question. > > > > > > > > Just because you disagreed with any include/exclude something into > scope, > > > > does not mean that whole community disagreed. > > > > > > > > If folks will start a separate discussion with results of the > review, I > > > > > > see > > > > no reasons to reject their contribution, even if we need to revisit > our > > > > agreements and wait for a couple of days more. > > > > > > > > Am I missing some reason why dates are so fundamentally important to > you? > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 12:20, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > If services is not ready, which it is not, then we should include > them > > > > > > > > into > > > > > the next release. There is no need to force them into 2.7. I > suggest we > > > > > move according to the schedule we all agreed on. > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, so correct statement is "community did not make any > decisions > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > services not go to 2.7/ services are out of scope". > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, please forgive me my confusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:19, Vladimir Ozerov < > voze..
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hello, Igniters. I think we shouldn't put so many emotions in discussion of any contribution. Even so big and important as SG redesign. The crucial point we all agreed about: Service Grid redesign a big feature that can significally improve Ignite. We all want to have it in the product. Let me write my vision of the current task state: 1. Design of SG is discussed *and aligned* both: privately with Ignite experts(Vladimir Ozerov, Alexey Goncharyuk, Anton Vinogradov, Denis Mekhanikov) and publicly on dev-list. This task is done. 2. Current PR state - *on my review*. I spend some time with this contribution and gave Vyacheslav a feedback. I expect he can fix my comments in a day or two. Seem we can ask of Anton Vinogradov review on the beginning of next week. If Dmitriy or any community member wants to help *by doing things, not discussing them on dev-list*. Please, join to the review - you are welcome. PR is here [1] 3. I think, we have two mutually exclusive options regarding of release 2.7 a. We release 2.7 in planned dates. b. We include SG in release scope. My vote goes to option *a*. I think we should release 2.7 with the bunch of new cool features. *AND* we should plan 2.8 release at the end of the year with SG redesign and MVCC stabilization tasks. Anyway, while we preparing release a lot of things can happen. Let's come back to discussion of SG release version *when it will be ready to be merged to master*. Guys, does it makes sense for you? [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434 В Пт, 28/09/2018 в 19:47 +0300, Dmitriy Pavlov пишет: > Hi Dmitriy, > > The design is aligned totally. The thread you mention was not named > properly. > > It seems to me some community members are trying to take over the community > and lead it instead of doing. > > As a member of the Apache community, I value Do-ocracy and power of those > who do, but not just disagree. There are no leaders in open source, just > do'ers. > > By do'ers here I mean Nikolay and Vyacheslav. For me, their conclusion has > more weight here. If Vladimir is ready to lead an additional release for SG > and SG developers agree, it works for me. > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 19:39, Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > Dmitriy, > > > > We agreed in the beginning of this thread that Service Grid changes are not > > going to make the release because the community still did not approve the > > design. Nothing has changed since. I have not seen any design discussions. > > At this point, I have no confidence that the Service Grid changes will make > > it into the 2.8 release. The 2.7 release seems out of question altogether. > > > > Also, Nikolay is a release manager. We should let him drive the release. To > > my knowledge, he is doing a great job and the release is going according to > > the schedule he proposed. > > > > D. > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:31 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Dmitriy, Vladimir, > > > > > > I suggest we stop this nonsense with release dates-pushing because of > > > > some > > > open question. > > > > > > Just because you disagreed with any include/exclude something into scope, > > > does not mean that whole community disagreed. > > > > > > If folks will start a separate discussion with results of the review, I > > > > see > > > no reasons to reject their contribution, even if we need to revisit our > > > agreements and wait for a couple of days more. > > > > > > Am I missing some reason why dates are so fundamentally important to you? > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 12:20, Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > > > > > If services is not ready, which it is not, then we should include them > > > > > > into > > > > the next release. There is no need to force them into 2.7. I suggest we > > > > move according to the schedule we all agreed on. > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes, so correct statement is "community did not make any decisions > > > > > > about > > > > > services not go to 2.7/ services are out of scope". > > > > > > > > > > If so, please forgive me my confusion. > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:19, Vladimir Ozerov > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. So correct statement is “it is up to *community* to decide > > > > > > > > > > whether > > > > > > something goes to 2.7”. > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:11, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it is up to the community to discuss after their review > > > > > > results. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:09, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did I read your words correctly that it is up to implementor > > > > of a > > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Even though I was not involved in the Service Grid 2.0 architectural or development discussions, my guts feel that we need to allocate enough time to test them through. It won't be just a fix or minor improvement, Vyacheslav has been working on a tremendous task that seems to re-engineer many aspects of the component. Plus, keep in mind that the current service grid engine is battle-tested and used in production, so every architectural change has to be well tested. Let's wait what the reviewers say (Anton and Nikolay). We need to allocate enough time to test it thoroughly and that time can go beyond the timeframe of 2.7. -- Denis On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:58 AM Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Importance come from the fact that we agreed on these dates. Neither > community, nor implementors of the feature were against it. And community > already work hard to met that dates: a lot of people already aligned their > plans, a lot very important tickets were moved out of scope to met the > dates. > > Nonsense - is to come at the end of coding phase and suggest to replay the > plans all of a sudden. If you find it important - please start a separate > discussion where it will be your responsibility to prove community that we > have to realign our plans and delay release of all other features due to > Service Grid being ahead of schedule. And solution to that problem will be > very simple - to plan another release once Service Grid is coded, tested, > reviewed and benchmarked. > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:31 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > Hi Dmitriy, Vladimir, > > > > I suggest we stop this nonsense with release dates-pushing because of > some > > open question. > > > > Just because you disagreed with any include/exclude something into scope, > > does not mean that whole community disagreed. > > > > If folks will start a separate discussion with results of the review, I > see > > no reasons to reject their contribution, even if we need to revisit our > > agreements and wait for a couple of days more. > > > > Am I missing some reason why dates are so fundamentally important to you? > > > > Sincerely, > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 12:20, Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > > > If services is not ready, which it is not, then we should include them > > into > > > the next release. There is no need to force them into 2.7. I suggest we > > > move according to the schedule we all agreed on. > > > > > > D. > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, so correct statement is "community did not make any decisions > > about > > > > services not go to 2.7/ services are out of scope". > > > > > > > > If so, please forgive me my confusion. > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:19, Vladimir Ozerov >: > > > > > > > > > Exactly. So correct statement is “it is up to *community* to decide > > > > whether > > > > > something goes to 2.7”. > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:11, Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > No, it is up to the community to discuss after their review > > results. > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:09, Vladimir Ozerov < > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did I read your words correctly that it is up to implementor > of a > > > > > single > > > > > > > feature to decide whether release of all other features and > fixes > > > to > > > > be > > > > > > > delayed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:00, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My point we can wait a bit for services because > > > > > > > > 1 we are open-minded and we don't have outside pressure to > do > > > > > release > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > October > > > > > > > > 2 and services it is not some new feature, which suddenly > > > appeared > > > > > in > > > > > > > > autumn, it is a well known and important feature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So it is up to Vyacheslav, Anton and Nikolay to decide. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Decisions can be services are not ready/ready to merge only > to > > > > > > > master/ready > > > > > > > > to merge to master and to 2.7. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:46, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Community agreement was to perform the release in October. > Of > > > > > course > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > wait a bit for services. Then we wait a bit for other cool > > > > features > > > > > > > ready > > > > > > > > > by that time, then again and again, and release will never > > > > happen. > > > > > > And > > > > > > > > > while we are waiting for new features to come, already > > > completerd > > > > > > > > features > > > > > > > > > cannot be used by anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hi Dmitriy, The design is aligned totally. The thread you mention was not named properly. It seems to me some community members are trying to take over the community and lead it instead of doing. As a member of the Apache community, I value Do-ocracy and power of those who do, but not just disagree. There are no leaders in open source, just do'ers. By do'ers here I mean Nikolay and Vyacheslav. For me, their conclusion has more weight here. If Vladimir is ready to lead an additional release for SG and SG developers agree, it works for me. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 19:39, Dmitriy Setrakyan : > Dmitriy, > > We agreed in the beginning of this thread that Service Grid changes are not > going to make the release because the community still did not approve the > design. Nothing has changed since. I have not seen any design discussions. > At this point, I have no confidence that the Service Grid changes will make > it into the 2.8 release. The 2.7 release seems out of question altogether. > > Also, Nikolay is a release manager. We should let him drive the release. To > my knowledge, he is doing a great job and the release is going according to > the schedule he proposed. > > D. > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:31 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > Hi Dmitriy, Vladimir, > > > > I suggest we stop this nonsense with release dates-pushing because of > some > > open question. > > > > Just because you disagreed with any include/exclude something into scope, > > does not mean that whole community disagreed. > > > > If folks will start a separate discussion with results of the review, I > see > > no reasons to reject their contribution, even if we need to revisit our > > agreements and wait for a couple of days more. > > > > Am I missing some reason why dates are so fundamentally important to you? > > > > Sincerely, > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 12:20, Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > > > If services is not ready, which it is not, then we should include them > > into > > > the next release. There is no need to force them into 2.7. I suggest we > > > move according to the schedule we all agreed on. > > > > > > D. > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, so correct statement is "community did not make any decisions > > about > > > > services not go to 2.7/ services are out of scope". > > > > > > > > If so, please forgive me my confusion. > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:19, Vladimir Ozerov >: > > > > > > > > > Exactly. So correct statement is “it is up to *community* to decide > > > > whether > > > > > something goes to 2.7”. > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:11, Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > No, it is up to the community to discuss after their review > > results. > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:09, Vladimir Ozerov < > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did I read your words correctly that it is up to implementor > of a > > > > > single > > > > > > > feature to decide whether release of all other features and > fixes > > > to > > > > be > > > > > > > delayed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:00, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My point we can wait a bit for services because > > > > > > > > 1 we are open-minded and we don't have outside pressure to > do > > > > > release > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > October > > > > > > > > 2 and services it is not some new feature, which suddenly > > > appeared > > > > > in > > > > > > > > autumn, it is a well known and important feature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So it is up to Vyacheslav, Anton and Nikolay to decide. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Decisions can be services are not ready/ready to merge only > to > > > > > > > master/ready > > > > > > > > to merge to master and to 2.7. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:46, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Community agreement was to perform the release in October. > Of > > > > > course > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > wait a bit for services. Then we wait a bit for other cool > > > > features > > > > > > > ready > > > > > > > > > by that time, then again and again, and release will never > > > > happen. > > > > > > And > > > > > > > > > while we are waiting for new features to come, already > > > completerd > > > > > > > > features > > > > > > > > > cannot be used by anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why we have an agreement that if feature is not > > ready, > > > it > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > moved to future release, instead of shifting release. The > > sole > > > > > reason > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > have strict
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Dmitriy, We agreed in the beginning of this thread that Service Grid changes are not going to make the release because the community still did not approve the design. Nothing has changed since. I have not seen any design discussions. At this point, I have no confidence that the Service Grid changes will make it into the 2.8 release. The 2.7 release seems out of question altogether. Also, Nikolay is a release manager. We should let him drive the release. To my knowledge, he is doing a great job and the release is going according to the schedule he proposed. D. On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:31 AM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > Hi Dmitriy, Vladimir, > > I suggest we stop this nonsense with release dates-pushing because of some > open question. > > Just because you disagreed with any include/exclude something into scope, > does not mean that whole community disagreed. > > If folks will start a separate discussion with results of the review, I see > no reasons to reject their contribution, even if we need to revisit our > agreements and wait for a couple of days more. > > Am I missing some reason why dates are so fundamentally important to you? > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 12:20, Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > If services is not ready, which it is not, then we should include them > into > > the next release. There is no need to force them into 2.7. I suggest we > > move according to the schedule we all agreed on. > > > > D. > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > > wrote: > > > > > Yes, so correct statement is "community did not make any decisions > about > > > services not go to 2.7/ services are out of scope". > > > > > > If so, please forgive me my confusion. > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:19, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > > > Exactly. So correct statement is “it is up to *community* to decide > > > whether > > > > something goes to 2.7”. > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:11, Dmitriy Pavlov >: > > > > > > > > > No, it is up to the community to discuss after their review > results. > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:09, Vladimir Ozerov < > voze...@gridgain.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > Did I read your words correctly that it is up to implementor of a > > > > single > > > > > > feature to decide whether release of all other features and fixes > > to > > > be > > > > > > delayed? > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:00, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > My point we can wait a bit for services because > > > > > > > 1 we are open-minded and we don't have outside pressure to do > > > > release > > > > > in > > > > > > > October > > > > > > > 2 and services it is not some new feature, which suddenly > > appeared > > > > in > > > > > > > autumn, it is a well known and important feature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So it is up to Vyacheslav, Anton and Nikolay to decide. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Decisions can be services are not ready/ready to merge only to > > > > > > master/ready > > > > > > > to merge to master and to 2.7. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:46, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Community agreement was to perform the release in October. Of > > > > course > > > > > we > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > wait a bit for services. Then we wait a bit for other cool > > > features > > > > > > ready > > > > > > > > by that time, then again and again, and release will never > > > happen. > > > > > And > > > > > > > > while we are waiting for new features to come, already > > completerd > > > > > > > features > > > > > > > > cannot be used by anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why we have an agreement that if feature is not > ready, > > it > > > > > > should > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > moved to future release, instead of shifting release. The > sole > > > > reason > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > have strict dates when decisions are made is to let release > > > happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir, I'm not searching for enemy, and not fighting > with > > > > you. > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > happy about cases when we are hurrying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can't fix test, fill ticket details, can't wait for > > > > > contributions > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > finish their tasks. It is not best idea to use experience > > from > > > > > > > > commercial > > > > > > > > > companies in open source. Are there any pressure outside > > > > community? > > > > > > Did > > > > > > > > > someone promised rest of features to be released at 30 > > > September? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's re
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Importance come from the fact that we agreed on these dates. Neither community, nor implementors of the feature were against it. And community already work hard to met that dates: a lot of people already aligned their plans, a lot very important tickets were moved out of scope to met the dates. Nonsense - is to come at the end of coding phase and suggest to replay the plans all of a sudden. If you find it important - please start a separate discussion where it will be your responsibility to prove community that we have to realign our plans and delay release of all other features due to Service Grid being ahead of schedule. And solution to that problem will be very simple - to plan another release once Service Grid is coded, tested, reviewed and benchmarked. On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:31 PM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > Hi Dmitriy, Vladimir, > > I suggest we stop this nonsense with release dates-pushing because of some > open question. > > Just because you disagreed with any include/exclude something into scope, > does not mean that whole community disagreed. > > If folks will start a separate discussion with results of the review, I see > no reasons to reject their contribution, even if we need to revisit our > agreements and wait for a couple of days more. > > Am I missing some reason why dates are so fundamentally important to you? > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 12:20, Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > If services is not ready, which it is not, then we should include them > into > > the next release. There is no need to force them into 2.7. I suggest we > > move according to the schedule we all agreed on. > > > > D. > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > > wrote: > > > > > Yes, so correct statement is "community did not make any decisions > about > > > services not go to 2.7/ services are out of scope". > > > > > > If so, please forgive me my confusion. > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:19, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > > > Exactly. So correct statement is “it is up to *community* to decide > > > whether > > > > something goes to 2.7”. > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:11, Dmitriy Pavlov >: > > > > > > > > > No, it is up to the community to discuss after their review > results. > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:09, Vladimir Ozerov < > voze...@gridgain.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > Did I read your words correctly that it is up to implementor of a > > > > single > > > > > > feature to decide whether release of all other features and fixes > > to > > > be > > > > > > delayed? > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:00, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > My point we can wait a bit for services because > > > > > > > 1 we are open-minded and we don't have outside pressure to do > > > > release > > > > > in > > > > > > > October > > > > > > > 2 and services it is not some new feature, which suddenly > > appeared > > > > in > > > > > > > autumn, it is a well known and important feature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So it is up to Vyacheslav, Anton and Nikolay to decide. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Decisions can be services are not ready/ready to merge only to > > > > > > master/ready > > > > > > > to merge to master and to 2.7. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:46, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Community agreement was to perform the release in October. Of > > > > course > > > > > we > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > wait a bit for services. Then we wait a bit for other cool > > > features > > > > > > ready > > > > > > > > by that time, then again and again, and release will never > > > happen. > > > > > And > > > > > > > > while we are waiting for new features to come, already > > completerd > > > > > > > features > > > > > > > > cannot be used by anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why we have an agreement that if feature is not > ready, > > it > > > > > > should > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > moved to future release, instead of shifting release. The > sole > > > > reason > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > have strict dates when decisions are made is to let release > > > happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir, I'm not searching for enemy, and not fighting > with > > > > you. > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > happy about cases when we are hurrying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can't fix test, fill ticket details, can't wait for > > > > > contributions > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > finish their tasks. It is not best idea to use experience > > from > > > > > > > > commercial > > > > > > > > > companies in open source.
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hi Dmitriy, Vladimir, I suggest we stop this nonsense with release dates-pushing because of some open question. Just because you disagreed with any include/exclude something into scope, does not mean that whole community disagreed. If folks will start a separate discussion with results of the review, I see no reasons to reject their contribution, even if we need to revisit our agreements and wait for a couple of days more. Am I missing some reason why dates are so fundamentally important to you? Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 12:20, Dmitriy Setrakyan : > If services is not ready, which it is not, then we should include them into > the next release. There is no need to force them into 2.7. I suggest we > move according to the schedule we all agreed on. > > D. > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > Yes, so correct statement is "community did not make any decisions about > > services not go to 2.7/ services are out of scope". > > > > If so, please forgive me my confusion. > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:19, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > Exactly. So correct statement is “it is up to *community* to decide > > whether > > > something goes to 2.7”. > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:11, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > > > No, it is up to the community to discuss after their review results. > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:09, Vladimir Ozerov >: > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > Did I read your words correctly that it is up to implementor of a > > > single > > > > > feature to decide whether release of all other features and fixes > to > > be > > > > > delayed? > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:00, Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > My point we can wait a bit for services because > > > > > > 1 we are open-minded and we don't have outside pressure to do > > > release > > > > in > > > > > > October > > > > > > 2 and services it is not some new feature, which suddenly > appeared > > > in > > > > > > autumn, it is a well known and important feature. > > > > > > > > > > > > So it is up to Vyacheslav, Anton and Nikolay to decide. > > > > > > > > > > > > Decisions can be services are not ready/ready to merge only to > > > > > master/ready > > > > > > to merge to master and to 2.7. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:46, Vladimir Ozerov < > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Community agreement was to perform the release in October. Of > > > course > > > > we > > > > > > can > > > > > > > wait a bit for services. Then we wait a bit for other cool > > features > > > > > ready > > > > > > > by that time, then again and again, and release will never > > happen. > > > > And > > > > > > > while we are waiting for new features to come, already > completerd > > > > > > features > > > > > > > cannot be used by anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why we have an agreement that if feature is not ready, > it > > > > > should > > > > > > be > > > > > > > moved to future release, instead of shifting release. The sole > > > reason > > > > > to > > > > > > > have strict dates when decisions are made is to let release > > happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir, I'm not searching for enemy, and not fighting with > > > you. > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > happy about cases when we are hurrying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can't fix test, fill ticket details, can't wait for > > > > contributions > > > > > to > > > > > > > > finish their tasks. It is not best idea to use experience > from > > > > > > > commercial > > > > > > > > companies in open source. Are there any pressure outside > > > community? > > > > > Did > > > > > > > > someone promised rest of features to be released at 30 > > September? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's remember principle do-orcracy, power of those who do. > If > > > > > > contribor > > > > > > > > does change and reviewer does review, let's give right of > > making > > > > > > decision > > > > > > > > to them, but not to some closed club of people who privately > > > > discuss > > > > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 23:42 Vyacheslav Daradur < > > > > daradu...@gmail.com > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I have written about Service Grid before [1] I'm > > finalizing > > > > the > > > > > > > > > solution to be sure that implementation is reliable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About including it in 2.7, if we talk that code freeze > > tomorrow > > > > > then > > > > > > > > > the solution is not ready to merge yet. > > > > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
If services is not ready, which it is not, then we should include them into the next release. There is no need to force them into 2.7. I suggest we move according to the schedule we all agreed on. D. On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > Yes, so correct statement is "community did not make any decisions about > services not go to 2.7/ services are out of scope". > > If so, please forgive me my confusion. > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:19, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > Exactly. So correct statement is “it is up to *community* to decide > whether > > something goes to 2.7”. > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:11, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > No, it is up to the community to discuss after their review results. > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:09, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > Did I read your words correctly that it is up to implementor of a > > single > > > > feature to decide whether release of all other features and fixes to > be > > > > delayed? > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:00, Dmitriy Pavlov >: > > > > > > > > > My point we can wait a bit for services because > > > > > 1 we are open-minded and we don't have outside pressure to do > > release > > > in > > > > > October > > > > > 2 and services it is not some new feature, which suddenly appeared > > in > > > > > autumn, it is a well known and important feature. > > > > > > > > > > So it is up to Vyacheslav, Anton and Nikolay to decide. > > > > > > > > > > Decisions can be services are not ready/ready to merge only to > > > > master/ready > > > > > to merge to master and to 2.7. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:46, Vladimir Ozerov < > voze...@gridgain.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > > > > > Community agreement was to perform the release in October. Of > > course > > > we > > > > > can > > > > > > wait a bit for services. Then we wait a bit for other cool > features > > > > ready > > > > > > by that time, then again and again, and release will never > happen. > > > And > > > > > > while we are waiting for new features to come, already completerd > > > > > features > > > > > > cannot be used by anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why we have an agreement that if feature is not ready, it > > > > should > > > > > be > > > > > > moved to future release, instead of shifting release. The sole > > reason > > > > to > > > > > > have strict dates when decisions are made is to let release > happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir, I'm not searching for enemy, and not fighting with > > you. > > > > I'm > > > > > > not > > > > > > > happy about cases when we are hurrying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can't fix test, fill ticket details, can't wait for > > > contributions > > > > to > > > > > > > finish their tasks. It is not best idea to use experience from > > > > > > commercial > > > > > > > companies in open source. Are there any pressure outside > > community? > > > > Did > > > > > > > someone promised rest of features to be released at 30 > September? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's remember principle do-orcracy, power of those who do. If > > > > > contribor > > > > > > > does change and reviewer does review, let's give right of > making > > > > > decision > > > > > > > to them, but not to some closed club of people who privately > > > discuss > > > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 23:42 Vyacheslav Daradur < > > > daradu...@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I have written about Service Grid before [1] I'm > finalizing > > > the > > > > > > > > solution to be sure that implementation is reliable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About including it in 2.7, if we talk that code freeze > tomorrow > > > > then > > > > > > > > the solution is not ready to merge yet. > > > > > > > > I hope that prereviewers Anton Vinogradov and Nikolay Izhikov > > > will > > > > be > > > > > > > > able to answer if solution out of scope or not in a couple of > > > days. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Ignite-2-7-release-td34076.html#a34485 > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree, NPE during WAL flush is definitely a blocker. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is strange why the current test set did not fail after > > > commit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 21:45, Andrey Kuznetsov < > > > > stku...@gmail.com > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
I think if a commit does not lead to any test failure in the current master, there are no reasons to revert the commit. If there are valid scenarios which are failing, corresponding tests should be added and the root cause should be fixed under a separate issue. пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:19, Dmitriy Pavlov : > Hi Maxim, > > Once 1) you are sure that commit is related to the failure, and 2) in case > contributors are not responding, > please let me know, probably we need to open one more separate topic about > revert. > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:15, Maxim Muzafarov : > > > Andrey, Dmitry, > > > > > I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. It looks > > critical enough and can be a good candidate for fixing before 2.7 > release. > > > > I've found that commit [2] is also lead the exchange worker to hang in my > > branch related to IGNITE-7196. > > Not sure, I'm able to fix the whole [1] issue, but I will take a look at > > it. > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9731 > > [2] > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/2f72fe758d4256c4eb4610e5922ad3d174b43dc5 > > > > > > > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 at 11:11 Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > > > No, it is up to the community to discuss after their review results. > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:09, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > Did I read your words correctly that it is up to implementor of a > > single > > > > feature to decide whether release of all other features and fixes to > be > > > > delayed? > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:00, Dmitriy Pavlov >: > > > > > > > > > My point we can wait a bit for services because > > > > > 1 we are open-minded and we don't have outside pressure to do > > release > > > in > > > > > October > > > > > 2 and services it is not some new feature, which suddenly appeared > > in > > > > > autumn, it is a well known and important feature. > > > > > > > > > > So it is up to Vyacheslav, Anton and Nikolay to decide. > > > > > > > > > > Decisions can be services are not ready/ready to merge only to > > > > master/ready > > > > > to merge to master and to 2.7. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:46, Vladimir Ozerov < > voze...@gridgain.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > > > > > Community agreement was to perform the release in October. Of > > course > > > we > > > > > can > > > > > > wait a bit for services. Then we wait a bit for other cool > features > > > > ready > > > > > > by that time, then again and again, and release will never > happen. > > > And > > > > > > while we are waiting for new features to come, already completerd > > > > > features > > > > > > cannot be used by anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why we have an agreement that if feature is not ready, it > > > > should > > > > > be > > > > > > moved to future release, instead of shifting release. The sole > > reason > > > > to > > > > > > have strict dates when decisions are made is to let release > happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir, I'm not searching for enemy, and not fighting with > > you. > > > > I'm > > > > > > not > > > > > > > happy about cases when we are hurrying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can't fix test, fill ticket details, can't wait for > > > contributions > > > > to > > > > > > > finish their tasks. It is not best idea to use experience from > > > > > > commercial > > > > > > > companies in open source. Are there any pressure outside > > community? > > > > Did > > > > > > > someone promised rest of features to be released at 30 > September? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's remember principle do-orcracy, power of those who do. If > > > > > contribor > > > > > > > does change and reviewer does review, let's give right of > making > > > > > decision > > > > > > > to them, but not to some closed club of people who privately > > > discuss > > > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 23:42 Vyacheslav Daradur < > > > daradu...@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I have written about Service Grid before [1] I'm > finalizing > > > the > > > > > > > > solution to be sure that implementation is reliable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About including it in 2.7, if we talk that code freeze > tomorrow > > > > then > > > > > > > > the solution is not ready to merge yet. > > > > > > > > I hope that prereviewers Anton Vinogradov and Nikolay Izhikov > > > will > > > > be > > > > > > > > able to answer if solution out of scope or not in a couple of > > > days. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-deve
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Yes, so correct statement is "community did not make any decisions about services not go to 2.7/ services are out of scope". If so, please forgive me my confusion. пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:19, Vladimir Ozerov : > Exactly. So correct statement is “it is up to *community* to decide whether > something goes to 2.7”. > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:11, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > No, it is up to the community to discuss after their review results. > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:09, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > Did I read your words correctly that it is up to implementor of a > single > > > feature to decide whether release of all other features and fixes to be > > > delayed? > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:00, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > > > My point we can wait a bit for services because > > > > 1 we are open-minded and we don't have outside pressure to do > release > > in > > > > October > > > > 2 and services it is not some new feature, which suddenly appeared > in > > > > autumn, it is a well known and important feature. > > > > > > > > So it is up to Vyacheslav, Anton and Nikolay to decide. > > > > > > > > Decisions can be services are not ready/ready to merge only to > > > master/ready > > > > to merge to master and to 2.7. > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:46, Vladimir Ozerov >: > > > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > > > Community agreement was to perform the release in October. Of > course > > we > > > > can > > > > > wait a bit for services. Then we wait a bit for other cool features > > > ready > > > > > by that time, then again and again, and release will never happen. > > And > > > > > while we are waiting for new features to come, already completerd > > > > features > > > > > cannot be used by anyone. > > > > > > > > > > This is why we have an agreement that if feature is not ready, it > > > should > > > > be > > > > > moved to future release, instead of shifting release. The sole > reason > > > to > > > > > have strict dates when decisions are made is to let release happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir, I'm not searching for enemy, and not fighting with > you. > > > I'm > > > > > not > > > > > > happy about cases when we are hurrying. > > > > > > > > > > > > We can't fix test, fill ticket details, can't wait for > > contributions > > > to > > > > > > finish their tasks. It is not best idea to use experience from > > > > > commercial > > > > > > companies in open source. Are there any pressure outside > community? > > > Did > > > > > > someone promised rest of features to be released at 30 September? > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's remember principle do-orcracy, power of those who do. If > > > > contribor > > > > > > does change and reviewer does review, let's give right of making > > > > decision > > > > > > to them, but not to some closed club of people who privately > > discuss > > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 23:42 Vyacheslav Daradur < > > daradu...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I have written about Service Grid before [1] I'm finalizing > > the > > > > > > > solution to be sure that implementation is reliable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About including it in 2.7, if we talk that code freeze tomorrow > > > then > > > > > > > the solution is not ready to merge yet. > > > > > > > I hope that prereviewers Anton Vinogradov and Nikolay Izhikov > > will > > > be > > > > > > > able to answer if solution out of scope or not in a couple of > > days. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Ignite-2-7-release-td34076.html#a34485 > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree, NPE during WAL flush is definitely a blocker. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is strange why the current test set did not fail after > > commit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 21:45, Andrey Kuznetsov < > > > stku...@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see > [1]. > > It > > > > > looks > > > > > > > > > critical enough, and can be a good candidate for fixing > > before > > > > 2.7 > > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you agree? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9731 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:45, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I need Vhyacheslav's opin
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hi Maxim, Once 1) you are sure that commit is related to the failure, and 2) in case contributors are not responding, please let me know, probably we need to open one more separate topic about revert. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:15, Maxim Muzafarov : > Andrey, Dmitry, > > > I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. It looks > critical enough and can be a good candidate for fixing before 2.7 release. > > I've found that commit [2] is also lead the exchange worker to hang in my > branch related to IGNITE-7196. > Not sure, I'm able to fix the whole [1] issue, but I will take a look at > it. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9731 > [2] > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/2f72fe758d4256c4eb4610e5922ad3d174b43dc5 > > > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 at 11:11 Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > > > No, it is up to the community to discuss after their review results. > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:09, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > Did I read your words correctly that it is up to implementor of a > single > > > feature to decide whether release of all other features and fixes to be > > > delayed? > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:00, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > > > My point we can wait a bit for services because > > > > 1 we are open-minded and we don't have outside pressure to do > release > > in > > > > October > > > > 2 and services it is not some new feature, which suddenly appeared > in > > > > autumn, it is a well known and important feature. > > > > > > > > So it is up to Vyacheslav, Anton and Nikolay to decide. > > > > > > > > Decisions can be services are not ready/ready to merge only to > > > master/ready > > > > to merge to master and to 2.7. > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:46, Vladimir Ozerov >: > > > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > > > Community agreement was to perform the release in October. Of > course > > we > > > > can > > > > > wait a bit for services. Then we wait a bit for other cool features > > > ready > > > > > by that time, then again and again, and release will never happen. > > And > > > > > while we are waiting for new features to come, already completerd > > > > features > > > > > cannot be used by anyone. > > > > > > > > > > This is why we have an agreement that if feature is not ready, it > > > should > > > > be > > > > > moved to future release, instead of shifting release. The sole > reason > > > to > > > > > have strict dates when decisions are made is to let release happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir, I'm not searching for enemy, and not fighting with > you. > > > I'm > > > > > not > > > > > > happy about cases when we are hurrying. > > > > > > > > > > > > We can't fix test, fill ticket details, can't wait for > > contributions > > > to > > > > > > finish their tasks. It is not best idea to use experience from > > > > > commercial > > > > > > companies in open source. Are there any pressure outside > community? > > > Did > > > > > > someone promised rest of features to be released at 30 September? > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's remember principle do-orcracy, power of those who do. If > > > > contribor > > > > > > does change and reviewer does review, let's give right of making > > > > decision > > > > > > to them, but not to some closed club of people who privately > > discuss > > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 23:42 Vyacheslav Daradur < > > daradu...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I have written about Service Grid before [1] I'm finalizing > > the > > > > > > > solution to be sure that implementation is reliable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About including it in 2.7, if we talk that code freeze tomorrow > > > then > > > > > > > the solution is not ready to merge yet. > > > > > > > I hope that prereviewers Anton Vinogradov and Nikolay Izhikov > > will > > > be > > > > > > > able to answer if solution out of scope or not in a couple of > > days. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Ignite-2-7-release-td34076.html#a34485 > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree, NPE during WAL flush is definitely a blocker. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is strange why the current test set did not fail after > > commit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 21:45, Andrey Kuznetsov < > > > stku...@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Exactly. So correct statement is “it is up to *community* to decide whether something goes to 2.7”. пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:11, Dmitriy Pavlov : > No, it is up to the community to discuss after their review results. > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:09, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > Dmitriy, > > > > Did I read your words correctly that it is up to implementor of a single > > feature to decide whether release of all other features and fixes to be > > delayed? > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:00, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > My point we can wait a bit for services because > > > 1 we are open-minded and we don't have outside pressure to do release > in > > > October > > > 2 and services it is not some new feature, which suddenly appeared in > > > autumn, it is a well known and important feature. > > > > > > So it is up to Vyacheslav, Anton and Nikolay to decide. > > > > > > Decisions can be services are not ready/ready to merge only to > > master/ready > > > to merge to master and to 2.7. > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:46, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > Community agreement was to perform the release in October. Of course > we > > > can > > > > wait a bit for services. Then we wait a bit for other cool features > > ready > > > > by that time, then again and again, and release will never happen. > And > > > > while we are waiting for new features to come, already completerd > > > features > > > > cannot be used by anyone. > > > > > > > > This is why we have an agreement that if feature is not ready, it > > should > > > be > > > > moved to future release, instead of shifting release. The sole reason > > to > > > > have strict dates when decisions are made is to let release happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Vladimir, I'm not searching for enemy, and not fighting with you. > > I'm > > > > not > > > > > happy about cases when we are hurrying. > > > > > > > > > > We can't fix test, fill ticket details, can't wait for > contributions > > to > > > > > finish their tasks. It is not best idea to use experience from > > > > commercial > > > > > companies in open source. Are there any pressure outside community? > > Did > > > > > someone promised rest of features to be released at 30 September? > > > > > > > > > > Let's remember principle do-orcracy, power of those who do. If > > > contribor > > > > > does change and reviewer does review, let's give right of making > > > decision > > > > > to them, but not to some closed club of people who privately > discuss > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 23:42 Vyacheslav Daradur < > daradu...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters! > > > > > > > > > > > > As I have written about Service Grid before [1] I'm finalizing > the > > > > > > solution to be sure that implementation is reliable. > > > > > > > > > > > > About including it in 2.7, if we talk that code freeze tomorrow > > then > > > > > > the solution is not ready to merge yet. > > > > > > I hope that prereviewers Anton Vinogradov and Nikolay Izhikov > will > > be > > > > > > able to answer if solution out of scope or not in a couple of > days. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Ignite-2-7-release-td34076.html#a34485 > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree, NPE during WAL flush is definitely a blocker. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is strange why the current test set did not fail after > commit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 21:45, Andrey Kuznetsov < > > stku...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. > It > > > > looks > > > > > > > > critical enough, and can be a good candidate for fixing > before > > > 2.7 > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you agree? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9731 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:45, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I need Vhyacheslav's opinion to be absolutely sure what > > status > > > is > > > > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We never committed to dates of release, as well. I don't > > quite > > > > > > understand > > > > > > > > > what can mean 'the community committed to doing/releasing > > > > > something'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About SG, I also concerned why such a big feature has > quite a > > > few > > > > > > > > > discussions on the list. But it is another story. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент.
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Andrey, Dmitry, > I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. It looks critical enough and can be a good candidate for fixing before 2.7 release. I've found that commit [2] is also lead the exchange worker to hang in my branch related to IGNITE-7196. Not sure, I'm able to fix the whole [1] issue, but I will take a look at it. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9731 [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/2f72fe758d4256c4eb4610e5922ad3d174b43dc5 On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 at 11:11 Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > No, it is up to the community to discuss after their review results. > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:09, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > Dmitriy, > > > > Did I read your words correctly that it is up to implementor of a single > > feature to decide whether release of all other features and fixes to be > > delayed? > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:00, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > My point we can wait a bit for services because > > > 1 we are open-minded and we don't have outside pressure to do release > in > > > October > > > 2 and services it is not some new feature, which suddenly appeared in > > > autumn, it is a well known and important feature. > > > > > > So it is up to Vyacheslav, Anton and Nikolay to decide. > > > > > > Decisions can be services are not ready/ready to merge only to > > master/ready > > > to merge to master and to 2.7. > > > > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:46, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > Community agreement was to perform the release in October. Of course > we > > > can > > > > wait a bit for services. Then we wait a bit for other cool features > > ready > > > > by that time, then again and again, and release will never happen. > And > > > > while we are waiting for new features to come, already completerd > > > features > > > > cannot be used by anyone. > > > > > > > > This is why we have an agreement that if feature is not ready, it > > should > > > be > > > > moved to future release, instead of shifting release. The sole reason > > to > > > > have strict dates when decisions are made is to let release happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Vladimir, I'm not searching for enemy, and not fighting with you. > > I'm > > > > not > > > > > happy about cases when we are hurrying. > > > > > > > > > > We can't fix test, fill ticket details, can't wait for > contributions > > to > > > > > finish their tasks. It is not best idea to use experience from > > > > commercial > > > > > companies in open source. Are there any pressure outside community? > > Did > > > > > someone promised rest of features to be released at 30 September? > > > > > > > > > > Let's remember principle do-orcracy, power of those who do. If > > > contribor > > > > > does change and reviewer does review, let's give right of making > > > decision > > > > > to them, but not to some closed club of people who privately > discuss > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 23:42 Vyacheslav Daradur < > daradu...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters! > > > > > > > > > > > > As I have written about Service Grid before [1] I'm finalizing > the > > > > > > solution to be sure that implementation is reliable. > > > > > > > > > > > > About including it in 2.7, if we talk that code freeze tomorrow > > then > > > > > > the solution is not ready to merge yet. > > > > > > I hope that prereviewers Anton Vinogradov and Nikolay Izhikov > will > > be > > > > > > able to answer if solution out of scope or not in a couple of > days. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Ignite-2-7-release-td34076.html#a34485 > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree, NPE during WAL flush is definitely a blocker. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is strange why the current test set did not fail after > commit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 21:45, Andrey Kuznetsov < > > stku...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. > It > > > > looks > > > > > > > > critical enough, and can be a good candidate for fixing > before > > > 2.7 > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you agree? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9731 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:45, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I need Vhyacheslav's opinion to be absolutely sure what > > status > > > is > > > > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We never committed to
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
No, it is up to the community to discuss after their review results. пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:09, Vladimir Ozerov : > Dmitriy, > > Did I read your words correctly that it is up to implementor of a single > feature to decide whether release of all other features and fixes to be > delayed? > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:00, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > My point we can wait a bit for services because > > 1 we are open-minded and we don't have outside pressure to do release in > > October > > 2 and services it is not some new feature, which suddenly appeared in > > autumn, it is a well known and important feature. > > > > So it is up to Vyacheslav, Anton and Nikolay to decide. > > > > Decisions can be services are not ready/ready to merge only to > master/ready > > to merge to master and to 2.7. > > > > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:46, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > Community agreement was to perform the release in October. Of course we > > can > > > wait a bit for services. Then we wait a bit for other cool features > ready > > > by that time, then again and again, and release will never happen. And > > > while we are waiting for new features to come, already completerd > > features > > > cannot be used by anyone. > > > > > > This is why we have an agreement that if feature is not ready, it > should > > be > > > moved to future release, instead of shifting release. The sole reason > to > > > have strict dates when decisions are made is to let release happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Vladimir, I'm not searching for enemy, and not fighting with you. > I'm > > > not > > > > happy about cases when we are hurrying. > > > > > > > > We can't fix test, fill ticket details, can't wait for contributions > to > > > > finish their tasks. It is not best idea to use experience from > > > commercial > > > > companies in open source. Are there any pressure outside community? > Did > > > > someone promised rest of features to be released at 30 September? > > > > > > > > Let's remember principle do-orcracy, power of those who do. If > > contribor > > > > does change and reviewer does review, let's give right of making > > decision > > > > to them, but not to some closed club of people who privately discuss > > > > something. > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 23:42 Vyacheslav Daradur >: > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters! > > > > > > > > > > As I have written about Service Grid before [1] I'm finalizing the > > > > > solution to be sure that implementation is reliable. > > > > > > > > > > About including it in 2.7, if we talk that code freeze tomorrow > then > > > > > the solution is not ready to merge yet. > > > > > I hope that prereviewers Anton Vinogradov and Nikolay Izhikov will > be > > > > > able to answer if solution out of scope or not in a couple of days. > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Ignite-2-7-release-td34076.html#a34485 > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree, NPE during WAL flush is definitely a blocker. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is strange why the current test set did not fail after commit. > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 21:45, Andrey Kuznetsov < > stku...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. It > > > looks > > > > > > > critical enough, and can be a good candidate for fixing before > > 2.7 > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you agree? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9731 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:45, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I need Vhyacheslav's opinion to be absolutely sure what > status > > is > > > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We never committed to dates of release, as well. I don't > quite > > > > > understand > > > > > > > > what can mean 'the community committed to doing/releasing > > > > something'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About SG, I also concerned why such a big feature has quite a > > few > > > > > > > > discussions on the list. But it is another story. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:33, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please stop looking for enemies everywhere. Just went > through > > > > this > > > > > > > thread > > > > > > > > > and search for "service" word. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:30 PM Denis Magda < > > dma...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Denis, as PM
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Dmitriy, Did I read your words correctly that it is up to implementor of a single feature to decide whether release of all other features and fixes to be delayed? пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:00, Dmitriy Pavlov : > My point we can wait a bit for services because > 1 we are open-minded and we don't have outside pressure to do release in > October > 2 and services it is not some new feature, which suddenly appeared in > autumn, it is a well known and important feature. > > So it is up to Vyacheslav, Anton and Nikolay to decide. > > Decisions can be services are not ready/ready to merge only to master/ready > to merge to master and to 2.7. > > > пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:46, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > Dmitry, > > > > Community agreement was to perform the release in October. Of course we > can > > wait a bit for services. Then we wait a bit for other cool features ready > > by that time, then again and again, and release will never happen. And > > while we are waiting for new features to come, already completerd > features > > cannot be used by anyone. > > > > This is why we have an agreement that if feature is not ready, it should > be > > moved to future release, instead of shifting release. The sole reason to > > have strict dates when decisions are made is to let release happen. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > > wrote: > > > > > Vladimir, I'm not searching for enemy, and not fighting with you. I'm > > not > > > happy about cases when we are hurrying. > > > > > > We can't fix test, fill ticket details, can't wait for contributions to > > > finish their tasks. It is not best idea to use experience from > > commercial > > > companies in open source. Are there any pressure outside community? Did > > > someone promised rest of features to be released at 30 September? > > > > > > Let's remember principle do-orcracy, power of those who do. If > contribor > > > does change and reviewer does review, let's give right of making > decision > > > to them, but not to some closed club of people who privately discuss > > > something. > > > > > > Sincerely > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 23:42 Vyacheslav Daradur : > > > > > > > Hi Igniters! > > > > > > > > As I have written about Service Grid before [1] I'm finalizing the > > > > solution to be sure that implementation is reliable. > > > > > > > > About including it in 2.7, if we talk that code freeze tomorrow then > > > > the solution is not ready to merge yet. > > > > I hope that prereviewers Anton Vinogradov and Nikolay Izhikov will be > > > > able to answer if solution out of scope or not in a couple of days. > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Ignite-2-7-release-td34076.html#a34485 > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree, NPE during WAL flush is definitely a blocker. > > > > > > > > > > It is strange why the current test set did not fail after commit. > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 21:45, Andrey Kuznetsov >: > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. It > > looks > > > > > > critical enough, and can be a good candidate for fixing before > 2.7 > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you agree? > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9731 > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:45, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I need Vhyacheslav's opinion to be absolutely sure what status > is > > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We never committed to dates of release, as well. I don't quite > > > > understand > > > > > > > what can mean 'the community committed to doing/releasing > > > something'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About SG, I also concerned why such a big feature has quite a > few > > > > > > > discussions on the list. But it is another story. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:33, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please stop looking for enemies everywhere. Just went through > > > this > > > > > > thread > > > > > > > > and search for "service" word. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:30 PM Denis Magda < > dma...@apache.org > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that > Service > > > Grid > > > > > > > >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the > > > > Apache > > > > > > Way. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> It's fine when committers/contributors have private > > discussions > > > > > > related > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > >> a feature they've been working on. Not everything should go > > > > through > > > > > > the > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
My point we can wait a bit for services because 1 we are open-minded and we don't have outside pressure to do release in October 2 and services it is not some new feature, which suddenly appeared in autumn, it is a well known and important feature. So it is up to Vyacheslav, Anton and Nikolay to decide. Decisions can be services are not ready/ready to merge only to master/ready to merge to master and to 2.7. пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 10:46, Vladimir Ozerov : > Dmitry, > > Community agreement was to perform the release in October. Of course we can > wait a bit for services. Then we wait a bit for other cool features ready > by that time, then again and again, and release will never happen. And > while we are waiting for new features to come, already completerd features > cannot be used by anyone. > > This is why we have an agreement that if feature is not ready, it should be > moved to future release, instead of shifting release. The sole reason to > have strict dates when decisions are made is to let release happen. > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > Vladimir, I'm not searching for enemy, and not fighting with you. I'm > not > > happy about cases when we are hurrying. > > > > We can't fix test, fill ticket details, can't wait for contributions to > > finish their tasks. It is not best idea to use experience from > commercial > > companies in open source. Are there any pressure outside community? Did > > someone promised rest of features to be released at 30 September? > > > > Let's remember principle do-orcracy, power of those who do. If contribor > > does change and reviewer does review, let's give right of making decision > > to them, but not to some closed club of people who privately discuss > > something. > > > > Sincerely > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 23:42 Vyacheslav Daradur : > > > > > Hi Igniters! > > > > > > As I have written about Service Grid before [1] I'm finalizing the > > > solution to be sure that implementation is reliable. > > > > > > About including it in 2.7, if we talk that code freeze tomorrow then > > > the solution is not ready to merge yet. > > > I hope that prereviewers Anton Vinogradov and Nikolay Izhikov will be > > > able to answer if solution out of scope or not in a couple of days. > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Ignite-2-7-release-td34076.html#a34485 > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree, NPE during WAL flush is definitely a blocker. > > > > > > > > It is strange why the current test set did not fail after commit. > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 21:45, Andrey Kuznetsov : > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. It > looks > > > > > critical enough, and can be a good candidate for fixing before 2.7 > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > Do you agree? > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9731 > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:45, Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > I need Vhyacheslav's opinion to be absolutely sure what status is > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > > > We never committed to dates of release, as well. I don't quite > > > understand > > > > > > what can mean 'the community committed to doing/releasing > > something'. > > > > > > > > > > > > About SG, I also concerned why such a big feature has quite a few > > > > > > discussions on the list. But it is another story. > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:33, Vladimir Ozerov < > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please stop looking for enemies everywhere. Just went through > > this > > > > > thread > > > > > > > and search for "service" word. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:30 PM Denis Magda > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service > > Grid > > > > > > >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the > > > Apache > > > > > Way. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> It's fine when committers/contributors have private > discussions > > > > > related > > > > > > to > > > > > > >> a feature they've been working on. Not everything should go > > > through > > > > > the > > > > > > >> dev > > > > > > >> list. Otherwise, it will be inundated. However, agree, that > > > > > > architectural > > > > > > >> and release decisions need to be done publicly. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Speaking about Service Grid, there was a discussion where I > saw > > > that > > > > > it > > > > > > >> was > > > > > > >> questionable whether it gets added to the release or not. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> *Vladislav*, could you please shed some light on the current > > > status of > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> service grid? >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Dmitry, Community agreement was to perform the release in October. Of course we can wait a bit for services. Then we wait a bit for other cool features ready by that time, then again and again, and release will never happen. And while we are waiting for new features to come, already completerd features cannot be used by anyone. This is why we have an agreement that if feature is not ready, it should be moved to future release, instead of shifting release. The sole reason to have strict dates when decisions are made is to let release happen. On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > Vladimir, I'm not searching for enemy, and not fighting with you. I'm not > happy about cases when we are hurrying. > > We can't fix test, fill ticket details, can't wait for contributions to > finish their tasks. It is not best idea to use experience from commercial > companies in open source. Are there any pressure outside community? Did > someone promised rest of features to be released at 30 September? > > Let's remember principle do-orcracy, power of those who do. If contribor > does change and reviewer does review, let's give right of making decision > to them, but not to some closed club of people who privately discuss > something. > > Sincerely > Dmitriy Pavlov > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 23:42 Vyacheslav Daradur : > > > Hi Igniters! > > > > As I have written about Service Grid before [1] I'm finalizing the > > solution to be sure that implementation is reliable. > > > > About including it in 2.7, if we talk that code freeze tomorrow then > > the solution is not ready to merge yet. > > I hope that prereviewers Anton Vinogradov and Nikolay Izhikov will be > > able to answer if solution out of scope or not in a couple of days. > > > > [1] > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Ignite-2-7-release-td34076.html#a34485 > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > wrote: > > > > > > Yes, I agree, NPE during WAL flush is definitely a blocker. > > > > > > It is strange why the current test set did not fail after commit. > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 21:45, Andrey Kuznetsov : > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. It looks > > > > critical enough, and can be a good candidate for fixing before 2.7 > > release. > > > > > > > > Do you agree? > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9731 > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:45, Dmitriy Pavlov >: > > > > > > > > > I need Vhyacheslav's opinion to be absolutely sure what status is > > now. > > > > > > > > > > We never committed to dates of release, as well. I don't quite > > understand > > > > > what can mean 'the community committed to doing/releasing > something'. > > > > > > > > > > About SG, I also concerned why such a big feature has quite a few > > > > > discussions on the list. But it is another story. > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:33, Vladimir Ozerov < > voze...@gridgain.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Please stop looking for enemies everywhere. Just went through > this > > > > thread > > > > > > and search for "service" word. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:30 PM Denis Magda > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service > Grid > > > > > >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the > > Apache > > > > Way. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It's fine when committers/contributors have private discussions > > > > related > > > > > to > > > > > >> a feature they've been working on. Not everything should go > > through > > > > the > > > > > >> dev > > > > > >> list. Otherwise, it will be inundated. However, agree, that > > > > > architectural > > > > > >> and release decisions need to be done publicly. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Speaking about Service Grid, there was a discussion where I saw > > that > > > > it > > > > > >> was > > > > > >> questionable whether it gets added to the release or not. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> *Vladislav*, could you please shed some light on the current > > status of > > > > > the > > > > > >> service grid? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:12 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Ok, let's wait for feedback from SG Author(s)/Reviewer(s) > > first. If > > > > it > > > > > >> is > > > > > >> > not ready, ok. But I thought it is almost done. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > I apologize if I missed some discussion (it can happen), but > > > > > >> > According to the statement "our current agreement" > > > > > >> > I can suspect some members are making some sort of private > > > > agreements, > > > > > >> and > > > > > >> > do not to discuss it on the list. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Let's build consensus here first, and then name an agreement. > > > > > >> > > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Vladimir, I'm not searching for enemy, and not fighting with you. I'm not happy about cases when we are hurrying. We can't fix test, fill ticket details, can't wait for contributions to finish their tasks. It is not best idea to use experience from commercial companies in open source. Are there any pressure outside community? Did someone promised rest of features to be released at 30 September? Let's remember principle do-orcracy, power of those who do. If contribor does change and reviewer does review, let's give right of making decision to them, but not to some closed club of people who privately discuss something. Sincerely Dmitriy Pavlov чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 23:42 Vyacheslav Daradur : > Hi Igniters! > > As I have written about Service Grid before [1] I'm finalizing the > solution to be sure that implementation is reliable. > > About including it in 2.7, if we talk that code freeze tomorrow then > the solution is not ready to merge yet. > I hope that prereviewers Anton Vinogradov and Nikolay Izhikov will be > able to answer if solution out of scope or not in a couple of days. > > [1] > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Ignite-2-7-release-td34076.html#a34485 > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > > Yes, I agree, NPE during WAL flush is definitely a blocker. > > > > It is strange why the current test set did not fail after commit. > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 21:45, Andrey Kuznetsov : > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. It looks > > > critical enough, and can be a good candidate for fixing before 2.7 > release. > > > > > > Do you agree? > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9731 > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:45, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > > > I need Vhyacheslav's opinion to be absolutely sure what status is > now. > > > > > > > > We never committed to dates of release, as well. I don't quite > understand > > > > what can mean 'the community committed to doing/releasing something'. > > > > > > > > About SG, I also concerned why such a big feature has quite a few > > > > discussions on the list. But it is another story. > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:33, Vladimir Ozerov >: > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > Please stop looking for enemies everywhere. Just went through this > > > thread > > > > > and search for "service" word. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:30 PM Denis Magda > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid > > > > >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the > Apache > > > Way. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> It's fine when committers/contributors have private discussions > > > related > > > > to > > > > >> a feature they've been working on. Not everything should go > through > > > the > > > > >> dev > > > > >> list. Otherwise, it will be inundated. However, agree, that > > > > architectural > > > > >> and release decisions need to be done publicly. > > > > >> > > > > >> Speaking about Service Grid, there was a discussion where I saw > that > > > it > > > > >> was > > > > >> questionable whether it gets added to the release or not. > > > > >> > > > > >> *Vladislav*, could you please shed some light on the current > status of > > > > the > > > > >> service grid? > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:12 AM Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@gmail.com > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Ok, let's wait for feedback from SG Author(s)/Reviewer(s) > first. If > > > it > > > > >> is > > > > >> > not ready, ok. But I thought it is almost done. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I apologize if I missed some discussion (it can happen), but > > > > >> > According to the statement "our current agreement" > > > > >> > I can suspect some members are making some sort of private > > > agreements, > > > > >> and > > > > >> > do not to discuss it on the list. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Let's build consensus here first, and then name an agreement. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid > > > > >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the > Apache > > > Way. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:55, Vladimir Ozerov < > voze...@gridgain.com > > > >: > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Dmitriy, > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> This is an outcome of current state of Service Grid - it is not > > > > ready. > > > > >> We > > > > >> >> never committed to have it to 2.7. Our goal was to try to > include > > > it > > > > >> into > > > > >> >> 2.7. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:48 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Could you please provide a reference to some thread? > Probably I > > > > >> missed > > > > >> >> it. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hi Igniters! As I have written about Service Grid before [1] I'm finalizing the solution to be sure that implementation is reliable. About including it in 2.7, if we talk that code freeze tomorrow then the solution is not ready to merge yet. I hope that prereviewers Anton Vinogradov and Nikolay Izhikov will be able to answer if solution out of scope or not in a couple of days. [1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Ignite-2-7-release-td34076.html#a34485 On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > > Yes, I agree, NPE during WAL flush is definitely a blocker. > > It is strange why the current test set did not fail after commit. > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 21:45, Andrey Kuznetsov : > > > Igniters, > > > > I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. It looks > > critical enough, and can be a good candidate for fixing before 2.7 release. > > > > Do you agree? > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9731 > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:45, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > > > I need Vhyacheslav's opinion to be absolutely sure what status is now. > > > > > > We never committed to dates of release, as well. I don't quite understand > > > what can mean 'the community committed to doing/releasing something'. > > > > > > About SG, I also concerned why such a big feature has quite a few > > > discussions on the list. But it is another story. > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:33, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > Please stop looking for enemies everywhere. Just went through this > > thread > > > > and search for "service" word. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:30 PM Denis Magda wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid > > > >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache > > Way. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> It's fine when committers/contributors have private discussions > > related > > > to > > > >> a feature they've been working on. Not everything should go through > > the > > > >> dev > > > >> list. Otherwise, it will be inundated. However, agree, that > > > architectural > > > >> and release decisions need to be done publicly. > > > >> > > > >> Speaking about Service Grid, there was a discussion where I saw that > > it > > > >> was > > > >> questionable whether it gets added to the release or not. > > > >> > > > >> *Vladislav*, could you please shed some light on the current status of > > > the > > > >> service grid? > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:12 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Ok, let's wait for feedback from SG Author(s)/Reviewer(s) first. If > > it > > > >> is > > > >> > not ready, ok. But I thought it is almost done. > > > >> > > > > >> > I apologize if I missed some discussion (it can happen), but > > > >> > According to the statement "our current agreement" > > > >> > I can suspect some members are making some sort of private > > agreements, > > > >> and > > > >> > do not to discuss it on the list. > > > >> > > > > >> > Let's build consensus here first, and then name an agreement. > > > >> > > > > >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid > > > >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache > > Way. > > > >> > > > > >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:55, Vladimir Ozerov > >: > > > >> > > > > >> >> Dmitriy, > > > >> >> > > > >> >> This is an outcome of current state of Service Grid - it is not > > > ready. > > > >> We > > > >> >> never committed to have it to 2.7. Our goal was to try to include > > it > > > >> into > > > >> >> 2.7. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:48 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > >> >> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Could you please provide a reference to some thread? Probably I > > > >> missed > > > >> >> it. > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > >> >: > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope. > > This > > > >> is a > > > >> >> > huge > > > >> >> > > feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not > > be > > > >> >> able to > > > >> >> > > review/fix/test it properly. > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > >> dpavlov@gmail.com > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > wrote: > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - > > 29 > > > >> Oct) > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope, > > > >> isn't > > > >> >> > it? I > > > >> >> > > > find it very important. > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov < > > > >> nizhi...@apache.org > > > >> >> >: > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > Hello, Vova. > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > Thank you for clear release s
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Yes, I agree, NPE during WAL flush is definitely a blocker. It is strange why the current test set did not fail after commit. чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 21:45, Andrey Kuznetsov : > Igniters, > > I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. It looks > critical enough, and can be a good candidate for fixing before 2.7 release. > > Do you agree? > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9731 > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:45, Dmitriy Pavlov : > > > I need Vhyacheslav's opinion to be absolutely sure what status is now. > > > > We never committed to dates of release, as well. I don't quite understand > > what can mean 'the community committed to doing/releasing something'. > > > > About SG, I also concerned why such a big feature has quite a few > > discussions on the list. But it is another story. > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:33, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > Please stop looking for enemies everywhere. Just went through this > thread > > > and search for "service" word. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:30 PM Denis Magda wrote: > > > > > >> > > > >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid > > >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache > Way. > > >> > > >> > > >> It's fine when committers/contributors have private discussions > related > > to > > >> a feature they've been working on. Not everything should go through > the > > >> dev > > >> list. Otherwise, it will be inundated. However, agree, that > > architectural > > >> and release decisions need to be done publicly. > > >> > > >> Speaking about Service Grid, there was a discussion where I saw that > it > > >> was > > >> questionable whether it gets added to the release or not. > > >> > > >> *Vladislav*, could you please shed some light on the current status of > > the > > >> service grid? > > >> > > >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:12 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Ok, let's wait for feedback from SG Author(s)/Reviewer(s) first. If > it > > >> is > > >> > not ready, ok. But I thought it is almost done. > > >> > > > >> > I apologize if I missed some discussion (it can happen), but > > >> > According to the statement "our current agreement" > > >> > I can suspect some members are making some sort of private > agreements, > > >> and > > >> > do not to discuss it on the list. > > >> > > > >> > Let's build consensus here first, and then name an agreement. > > >> > > > >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid > > >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache > Way. > > >> > > > >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:55, Vladimir Ozerov >: > > >> > > > >> >> Dmitriy, > > >> >> > > >> >> This is an outcome of current state of Service Grid - it is not > > ready. > > >> We > > >> >> never committed to have it to 2.7. Our goal was to try to include > it > > >> into > > >> >> 2.7. > > >> >> > > >> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:48 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > Could you please provide a reference to some thread? Probably I > > >> missed > > >> >> it. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir Ozerov < > > voze...@gridgain.com > > >> >: > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope. > This > > >> is a > > >> >> > huge > > >> >> > > feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not > be > > >> >> able to > > >> >> > > review/fix/test it properly. > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > >> dpavlov@gmail.com > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > wrote: > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - > 29 > > >> Oct) > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope, > > >> isn't > > >> >> > it? I > > >> >> > > > find it very important. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov < > > >> nizhi...@apache.org > > >> >> >: > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Hello, Vova. > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > Thank you for clear release status. > > >> >> > > > > I'm +1 for your proposal. > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov < > > >> >> akuznet...@apache.org > > >> >> > >: > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Vova, > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization. > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > -- > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrey Kuznetsov. >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Igniters, I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. It looks critical enough, and can be a good candidate for fixing before 2.7 release. Do you agree? [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9731 чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:45, Dmitriy Pavlov : > I need Vhyacheslav's opinion to be absolutely sure what status is now. > > We never committed to dates of release, as well. I don't quite understand > what can mean 'the community committed to doing/releasing something'. > > About SG, I also concerned why such a big feature has quite a few > discussions on the list. But it is another story. > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:33, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > Folks, > > > > Please stop looking for enemies everywhere. Just went through this thread > > and search for "service" word. > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:30 PM Denis Magda wrote: > > > >> > > >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid > >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache Way. > >> > >> > >> It's fine when committers/contributors have private discussions related > to > >> a feature they've been working on. Not everything should go through the > >> dev > >> list. Otherwise, it will be inundated. However, agree, that > architectural > >> and release decisions need to be done publicly. > >> > >> Speaking about Service Grid, there was a discussion where I saw that it > >> was > >> questionable whether it gets added to the release or not. > >> > >> *Vladislav*, could you please shed some light on the current status of > the > >> service grid? > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:12 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Ok, let's wait for feedback from SG Author(s)/Reviewer(s) first. If it > >> is > >> > not ready, ok. But I thought it is almost done. > >> > > >> > I apologize if I missed some discussion (it can happen), but > >> > According to the statement "our current agreement" > >> > I can suspect some members are making some sort of private agreements, > >> and > >> > do not to discuss it on the list. > >> > > >> > Let's build consensus here first, and then name an agreement. > >> > > >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid > >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache Way. > >> > > >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:55, Vladimir Ozerov : > >> > > >> >> Dmitriy, > >> >> > >> >> This is an outcome of current state of Service Grid - it is not > ready. > >> We > >> >> never committed to have it to 2.7. Our goal was to try to include it > >> into > >> >> 2.7. > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:48 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Could you please provide a reference to some thread? Probably I > >> missed > >> >> it. > >> >> > > >> >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir Ozerov < > voze...@gridgain.com > >> >: > >> >> > > >> >> > > Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope. This > >> is a > >> >> > huge > >> >> > > feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not be > >> >> able to > >> >> > > review/fix/test it properly. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > >> dpavlov@gmail.com > >> >> > > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 > >> Oct) > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope, > >> isn't > >> >> > it? I > >> >> > > > find it very important. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov < > >> nizhi...@apache.org > >> >> >: > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > Hello, Vova. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Thank you for clear release status. > >> >> > > > > I'm +1 for your proposal. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov < > >> >> akuznet...@apache.org > >> >> > >: > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Vova, > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization. > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > -- > >> >> > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
I need Vhyacheslav's opinion to be absolutely sure what status is now. We never committed to dates of release, as well. I don't quite understand what can mean 'the community committed to doing/releasing something'. About SG, I also concerned why such a big feature has quite a few discussions on the list. But it is another story. чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:33, Vladimir Ozerov : > Folks, > > Please stop looking for enemies everywhere. Just went through this thread > and search for "service" word. > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:30 PM Denis Magda wrote: > >> > >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache Way. >> >> >> It's fine when committers/contributors have private discussions related to >> a feature they've been working on. Not everything should go through the >> dev >> list. Otherwise, it will be inundated. However, agree, that architectural >> and release decisions need to be done publicly. >> >> Speaking about Service Grid, there was a discussion where I saw that it >> was >> questionable whether it gets added to the release or not. >> >> *Vladislav*, could you please shed some light on the current status of the >> service grid? >> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:12 AM Dmitriy Pavlov >> wrote: >> >> > Ok, let's wait for feedback from SG Author(s)/Reviewer(s) first. If it >> is >> > not ready, ok. But I thought it is almost done. >> > >> > I apologize if I missed some discussion (it can happen), but >> > According to the statement "our current agreement" >> > I can suspect some members are making some sort of private agreements, >> and >> > do not to discuss it on the list. >> > >> > Let's build consensus here first, and then name an agreement. >> > >> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid >> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache Way. >> > >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:55, Vladimir Ozerov : >> > >> >> Dmitriy, >> >> >> >> This is an outcome of current state of Service Grid - it is not ready. >> We >> >> never committed to have it to 2.7. Our goal was to try to include it >> into >> >> 2.7. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:48 PM Dmitriy Pavlov >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Could you please provide a reference to some thread? Probably I >> missed >> >> it. >> >> > >> >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir Ozerov > >: >> >> > >> >> > > Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope. This >> is a >> >> > huge >> >> > > feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not be >> >> able to >> >> > > review/fix/test it properly. >> >> > > >> >> > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < >> dpavlov@gmail.com >> >> > >> >> > > wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > > I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 >> Oct) >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope, >> isn't >> >> > it? I >> >> > > > find it very important. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov < >> nizhi...@apache.org >> >> >: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > Hello, Vova. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > Thank you for clear release status. >> >> > > > > I'm +1 for your proposal. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov < >> >> akuznet...@apache.org >> >> > >: >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > Vova, >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization. >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > -- >> >> > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Folks, Please stop looking for enemies everywhere. Just went through this thread and search for "service" word. On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:30 PM Denis Magda wrote: > > > > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid > > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache Way. > > > It's fine when committers/contributors have private discussions related to > a feature they've been working on. Not everything should go through the dev > list. Otherwise, it will be inundated. However, agree, that architectural > and release decisions need to be done publicly. > > Speaking about Service Grid, there was a discussion where I saw that it was > questionable whether it gets added to the release or not. > > *Vladislav*, could you please shed some light on the current status of the > service grid? > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:12 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > Ok, let's wait for feedback from SG Author(s)/Reviewer(s) first. If it is > > not ready, ok. But I thought it is almost done. > > > > I apologize if I missed some discussion (it can happen), but > > According to the statement "our current agreement" > > I can suspect some members are making some sort of private agreements, > and > > do not to discuss it on the list. > > > > Let's build consensus here first, and then name an agreement. > > > > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid > > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache Way. > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:55, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > >> Dmitriy, > >> > >> This is an outcome of current state of Service Grid - it is not ready. > We > >> never committed to have it to 2.7. Our goal was to try to include it > into > >> 2.7. > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:48 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Could you please provide a reference to some thread? Probably I missed > >> it. > >> > > >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir Ozerov : > >> > > >> > > Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope. This is > a > >> > huge > >> > > feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not be > >> able to > >> > > review/fix/test it properly. > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@gmail.com > >> > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 > Oct) > >> > > > > >> > > > Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope, > isn't > >> > it? I > >> > > > find it very important. > >> > > > > >> > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov < > nizhi...@apache.org > >> >: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hello, Vova. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Thank you for clear release status. > >> > > > > I'm +1 for your proposal. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov < > >> akuznet...@apache.org > >> > >: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Vova, > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > -- > >> > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache Way. It's fine when committers/contributors have private discussions related to a feature they've been working on. Not everything should go through the dev list. Otherwise, it will be inundated. However, agree, that architectural and release decisions need to be done publicly. Speaking about Service Grid, there was a discussion where I saw that it was questionable whether it gets added to the release or not. *Vladislav*, could you please shed some light on the current status of the service grid? On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:12 AM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > Ok, let's wait for feedback from SG Author(s)/Reviewer(s) first. If it is > not ready, ok. But I thought it is almost done. > > I apologize if I missed some discussion (it can happen), but > According to the statement "our current agreement" > I can suspect some members are making some sort of private agreements, and > do not to discuss it on the list. > > Let's build consensus here first, and then name an agreement. > > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache Way. > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:55, Vladimir Ozerov : > >> Dmitriy, >> >> This is an outcome of current state of Service Grid - it is not ready. We >> never committed to have it to 2.7. Our goal was to try to include it into >> 2.7. >> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:48 PM Dmitriy Pavlov >> wrote: >> >> > Could you please provide a reference to some thread? Probably I missed >> it. >> > >> > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir Ozerov : >> > >> > > Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope. This is a >> > huge >> > > feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not be >> able to >> > > review/fix/test it properly. >> > > >> > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 Oct) >> > > > >> > > > Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope, isn't >> > it? I >> > > > find it very important. >> > > > >> > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov > >: >> > > > >> > > > > Hello, Vova. >> > > > > >> > > > > Thank you for clear release status. >> > > > > I'm +1 for your proposal. >> > > > > >> > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov < >> akuznet...@apache.org >> > >: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Vova, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Ok, let's wait for feedback from SG Author(s)/Reviewer(s) first. If it is not ready, ok. But I thought it is almost done. I apologize if I missed some discussion (it can happen), but According to the statement "our current agreement" I can suspect some members are making some sort of private agreements, and do not to discuss it on the list. Let's build consensus here first, and then name an agreement. Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache Way. чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:55, Vladimir Ozerov : > Dmitriy, > > This is an outcome of current state of Service Grid - it is not ready. We > never committed to have it to 2.7. Our goal was to try to include it into > 2.7. > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:48 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > Could you please provide a reference to some thread? Probably I missed > it. > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope. This is a > > huge > > > feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not be able > to > > > review/fix/test it properly. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 Oct) > > > > > > > > Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope, isn't > > it? I > > > > find it very important. > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vova. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for clear release status. > > > > > I'm +1 for your proposal. > > > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov < > akuznet...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Vova, > > > > > > > > > > > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Dmitriy, This is an outcome of current state of Service Grid - it is not ready. We never committed to have it to 2.7. Our goal was to try to include it into 2.7. On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:48 PM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > Could you please provide a reference to some thread? Probably I missed it. > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope. This is a > huge > > feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not be able to > > review/fix/test it properly. > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > wrote: > > > > > I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 Oct) > > > > > > Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope, isn't > it? I > > > find it very important. > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > > > Hello, Vova. > > > > > > > > Thank you for clear release status. > > > > I'm +1 for your proposal. > > > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov >: > > > > > > > > > Vova, > > > > > > > > > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Could you please provide a reference to some thread? Probably I missed it. чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir Ozerov : > Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope. This is a huge > feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not be able to > review/fix/test it properly. > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 Oct) > > > > Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope, isn't it? I > > find it very important. > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > > > Hello, Vova. > > > > > > Thank you for clear release status. > > > I'm +1 for your proposal. > > > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov : > > > > > > > Vova, > > > > > > > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope. This is a huge feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not be able to review/fix/test it properly. On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 Oct) > > Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope, isn't it? I > find it very important. > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov : > > > Hello, Vova. > > > > Thank you for clear release status. > > I'm +1 for your proposal. > > > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov : > > > > > Vova, > > > > > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Alexey Kuznetsov > > > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 Oct) Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope, isn't it? I find it very important. чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov : > Hello, Vova. > > Thank you for clear release status. > I'm +1 for your proposal. > > чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov : > > > Vova, > > > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization. > > > > > > -- > > Alexey Kuznetsov > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hello, Vova. Thank you for clear release status. I'm +1 for your proposal. чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov : > Vova, > > Huge +1 to do a stabilization. > > > -- > Alexey Kuznetsov >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Vova, Huge +1 to do a stabilization. -- Alexey Kuznetsov
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 - Release Procedure issues
Please ignore. I missed the branch. On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 5:53 PM Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Igniters, > > Code Freeze date is tomorrow. Bad news is that we still have a number of > important features not-yet-merged (of most important - some MVCC stuff, > TDE, PHP/Python clients). Good news is that we made a good progress with > scope decrease. I propose the following release plan then: > > 1) By 30 Sept, only tickets critical for AI 2.7 release should have 2.7 > fix version. I expect that there should be about ~30 tickets, and most of > them are critical bugs (either existing or in new features). This is what > we call Code Freeze. From this time it is not allowed to add any tickets to > 2.7 unless you are able to prove that it is a blocker for the release. This > means absolute ban for any new features. > 2) Then we take *3 weeks for stabilization*: 1 Oct - 22 Oct. During this > time we fix all known bugs in new features, and finalize those new features > which are slightly behind a schedule. I would even suggest to take *4 > weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 Oct) > 3) Once stabilization is over, we start vote. > > This big stabilization window is essential for us, as current release will > contain a lot of huge features, which should be tested thoroughly before > going public. But the very critical ingredient here - *no new tickets on > AI 2.7* during this phase except of critical bug fixes found during > stabilization phase. > > In the end we will have nice and well tested AI 2.7 at the end of October. > > What do you think about it? > > Vladimir. > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 3:11 PM Nikolay Izhikov > wrote: > >> Hello, Petr. >> >> My suggestion is to migrate to a newer version of GPG and throw an error >> message if one use old version. >> >> В Пн, 24/09/2018 в 14:53 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет: >> > I’ve checked the changes and they are good both on old and latest >> versions of Ubuntu. >> > >> > >> > However, I’ve stumbled upon another problem — GPG: current release >> scripts do not honour latest GPG versions. >> > I can introduce corresponding changes, but question is — should release >> script check for GPG version and have 2 version of signing commands or just >> warn user about old version of GPG and exit? >> > >> > >> > > On 21 Sep 2018, at 19:46, Nikolay Izhikov >> wrote: >> > > >> > > Hello, Petr. >> > > >> > > Seems that rpm build script doesn't work on a lates Ubuntu Linux. >> > > I've created a ticket [1] and found a fix for it [2] >> > > >> > > With one line fix rpm build is working under my environment. >> > > Can you check fix on your environment? >> > > >> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9665 >> > > >> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4808 >> > > >> > > В Пт, 21/09/2018 в 16:22 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет: >> > > > Hi, Nikolay >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > I’ve tested vote_3_step_1 and vote_3_step_2 scripts from [1] and >> they are OK. >> > > > My configuration: >> > > > - generated gnupg key (~/.gnupg) >> > > > - Ubuntu 16.04 (with latest updates) >> > > > - packages: subversion git unzip alien rpm fakeroot gcc dpkg-sig >> gnupg-agent >> > > > >> > > > Please double check you environment for release procedure >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > [1] >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1914618&buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote&tab=artifacts#!hkm8d5gqy4ii >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > On 20 Sep 2018, at 17:39, Nikolay Izhikov >> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > Hello, Igniters. >> > > > > >> > > > > I've started to write Wiki article for a future Release Managers. >> > > > > Since release process doesn't described anywhere public I do it >> while releasing 2.7: >> > > > > >> > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+manager+Notes >> > > > > >> > > > > Any feedback is strongly appreciated. >> > > > > >> > > > > I've tried to walk through vote steps in release procedure and >> found some issues: >> > > > > >> > > > > Some of them we already fixed with Petr Ivanod and Anton >> Vinogradov. >> > > > > Thank you, guys! >> > > > > >> > > > > For now, I stuck on the following issue: >> > > > > >> > > > > `vote_3_step_1\[packages\]build.sh` is broken. >> > > > > I got following output: >> > > > > >> > > > > ``` >> > > > > RPM build errors: >> > > > > bogus date in %changelog: Fri Jun 17 2018 Peter Ivanov < >> mr.wei...@gmail.com> - 2.6.0-1 >> > > > > File not found: >> /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm/BUILDROOT/apache-ignite-2.6.0-1.x86_64/usr/share/doc/apache-ignite-2.6.0/MIGRATION_GUIDE.txt >> > > > > + processTrap >> > > > > + echo 'Removing temporary work directories: /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm' >> > > > > Removing temporary work directories: /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm >> > > > > + rm -rf /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm >> > > > > ``` >> > > > > >> > > > > 1. Script uses version number 2.6 somehow. >> > > > > 2. It fails because MIGRATION_GUIDE file doesn't exists. >> > > > > >> > > > > Is there anybody who can help with this issue? >> > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Igniters, Code Freeze date is tomorrow. Bad news is that we still have a number of important features not-yet-merged (of most important - some MVCC stuff, TDE, PHP/Python clients). Good news is that we made a good progress with scope decrease. I propose the following release plan then: 1) By 30 Sept, only tickets critical for AI 2.7 release should have 2.7 fix version. I expect that there should be about ~30 tickets, and most of them are critical bugs (either existing or in new features). This is what we call Code Freeze. From this time it is not allowed to add any tickets to 2.7 unless you are able to prove that it is a blocker for the release. This means absolute ban for any new features. 2) Then we take *3 weeks for stabilization*: 1 Oct - 22 Oct. During this time we fix all known bugs in new features, and finalize those new features which are slightly behind a schedule. I would even suggest to take *4 weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 Oct) 3) Once stabilization is over, we start vote. This big stabilization window is essential for us, as current release will contain a lot of huge features, which should be tested thoroughly before going public. But the very critical ingredient here - *no new tickets on AI 2.7* during this phase except of critical bug fixes found during stabilization phase. In the end we will have nice and well tested AI 2.7 at the end of October. What do you think about it? On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 4:17 PM Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > Hello, Igniters. > > I ping assigners in all tickets hase been planned for 2.7 and work is > started. > I plan to move all tickets in 'Open' state to 2.8 on Moday, 24 September. > > Please, respond, if you have any objections. > > > В Ср, 19/09/2018 в 16:02 +0300, Andrey Gura пишет: > > Nikolay, > > > > since we talk about scope freeze all you need now just create > > ignite-2.7 branch. We still can have tickets targeted to 2.7 release > > in progress. So you shouldn't move tickets to 2.8 because they can be > > targeted to 2.7 intentionally and will be merged to master and > > ignite-2.7 branches. > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov > wrote: > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > Vova, thank you for pointing this out. > > > > > > I ask all community members to iterate over assigned tickets. > > > Please, move your tickets to 2.8 release if work is still in progress. > > > At the end of the day, I will do it by myself and tomorrow we should > have > > > release scope prepared. > > > > > > > > > ср, 19 сент. 2018 г. в 12:08, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > > > My point was not about code freeze, but about scope freeze, what > means that > > > > starting from this point AI 2.7 release should not receive any > commits > > > > which doesn't relate to it. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:55 AM Anton Vinogradov > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Vova, > > > > > > > > > > AFAIK, codefreeze was not announced yet. > > > > > Correct me in case I missed this. > > > > > > > > > > Now, Nikolay finishing checks that he's able to perform release > > > > > > > > (everything > > > > > installed and properly configured). > > > > > So, I recommend him to mention this check here to solve any > > > > > misunderstanding in case some branches or tags related to 2.7 will > be > > > > > > > > found > > > > > before we announced codefreeze. > > > > > > > > > > ср, 19 сент. 2018 г. в 11:45, Vladimir Ozerov < > voze...@gridgain.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean under "preparation to real 2.7". It is already > real, > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > reached formal code freeze phase we agreed on. At this point we > need to > > > > > > exclude non-2.7 commits, otherwise we will not be able to come to > > > > > > > > stable > > > > > > branch in two weeks. > > > > > > For this reason creating a branch for 2.7 at the moment is > perfectly > > > > > > > > > > valid > > > > > > thing. This is how we made releases previously. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:59 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Paul. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are 2 PRs linked to that ticket. Who is reviewing your > changes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Branch for 2.7 is still master, so if your changes are > reviewed and > > > > > > > accepted soon it will be in 2.7. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 16:22, Paul Anderson < > devilje...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, may I ask for IGNITE-9298 to be included in 2.7 pls > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:03 PM Nikolay Izhikov < > > > > > > > > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, folks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will follow them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 - Release Procedure issues
Igniters, Code Freeze date is tomorrow. Bad news is that we still have a number of important features not-yet-merged (of most important - some MVCC stuff, TDE, PHP/Python clients). Good news is that we made a good progress with scope decrease. I propose the following release plan then: 1) By 30 Sept, only tickets critical for AI 2.7 release should have 2.7 fix version. I expect that there should be about ~30 tickets, and most of them are critical bugs (either existing or in new features). This is what we call Code Freeze. From this time it is not allowed to add any tickets to 2.7 unless you are able to prove that it is a blocker for the release. This means absolute ban for any new features. 2) Then we take *3 weeks for stabilization*: 1 Oct - 22 Oct. During this time we fix all known bugs in new features, and finalize those new features which are slightly behind a schedule. I would even suggest to take *4 weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 Oct) 3) Once stabilization is over, we start vote. This big stabilization window is essential for us, as current release will contain a lot of huge features, which should be tested thoroughly before going public. But the very critical ingredient here - *no new tickets on AI 2.7* during this phase except of critical bug fixes found during stabilization phase. In the end we will have nice and well tested AI 2.7 at the end of October. What do you think about it? Vladimir. On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 3:11 PM Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > Hello, Petr. > > My suggestion is to migrate to a newer version of GPG and throw an error > message if one use old version. > > В Пн, 24/09/2018 в 14:53 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет: > > I’ve checked the changes and they are good both on old and latest > versions of Ubuntu. > > > > > > However, I’ve stumbled upon another problem — GPG: current release > scripts do not honour latest GPG versions. > > I can introduce corresponding changes, but question is — should release > script check for GPG version and have 2 version of signing commands or just > warn user about old version of GPG and exit? > > > > > > > On 21 Sep 2018, at 19:46, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > > > > > Hello, Petr. > > > > > > Seems that rpm build script doesn't work on a lates Ubuntu Linux. > > > I've created a ticket [1] and found a fix for it [2] > > > > > > With one line fix rpm build is working under my environment. > > > Can you check fix on your environment? > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9665 > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4808 > > > > > > В Пт, 21/09/2018 в 16:22 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет: > > > > Hi, Nikolay > > > > > > > > > > > > I’ve tested vote_3_step_1 and vote_3_step_2 scripts from [1] and > they are OK. > > > > My configuration: > > > > - generated gnupg key (~/.gnupg) > > > > - Ubuntu 16.04 (with latest updates) > > > > - packages: subversion git unzip alien rpm fakeroot gcc dpkg-sig > gnupg-agent > > > > > > > > Please double check you environment for release procedure > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1914618&buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote&tab=artifacts#!hkm8d5gqy4ii > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 20 Sep 2018, at 17:39, Nikolay Izhikov > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > I've started to write Wiki article for a future Release Managers. > > > > > Since release process doesn't described anywhere public I do it > while releasing 2.7: > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+manager+Notes > > > > > > > > > > Any feedback is strongly appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > I've tried to walk through vote steps in release procedure and > found some issues: > > > > > > > > > > Some of them we already fixed with Petr Ivanod and Anton > Vinogradov. > > > > > Thank you, guys! > > > > > > > > > > For now, I stuck on the following issue: > > > > > > > > > > `vote_3_step_1\[packages\]build.sh` is broken. > > > > > I got following output: > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > RPM build errors: > > > > > bogus date in %changelog: Fri Jun 17 2018 Peter Ivanov < > mr.wei...@gmail.com> - 2.6.0-1 > > > > > File not found: > /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm/BUILDROOT/apache-ignite-2.6.0-1.x86_64/usr/share/doc/apache-ignite-2.6.0/MIGRATION_GUIDE.txt > > > > > + processTrap > > > > > + echo 'Removing temporary work directories: /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm' > > > > > Removing temporary work directories: /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm > > > > > + rm -rf /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > 1. Script uses version number 2.6 somehow. > > > > > 2. It fails because MIGRATION_GUIDE file doesn't exists. > > > > > > > > > > Is there anybody who can help with this issue? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 - Release Procedure issues
Hello, Petr. My suggestion is to migrate to a newer version of GPG and throw an error message if one use old version. В Пн, 24/09/2018 в 14:53 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет: > I’ve checked the changes and they are good both on old and latest versions of > Ubuntu. > > > However, I’ve stumbled upon another problem — GPG: current release scripts do > not honour latest GPG versions. > I can introduce corresponding changes, but question is — should release > script check for GPG version and have 2 version of signing commands or just > warn user about old version of GPG and exit? > > > > On 21 Sep 2018, at 19:46, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > > > Hello, Petr. > > > > Seems that rpm build script doesn't work on a lates Ubuntu Linux. > > I've created a ticket [1] and found a fix for it [2] > > > > With one line fix rpm build is working under my environment. > > Can you check fix on your environment? > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9665 > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4808 > > > > В Пт, 21/09/2018 в 16:22 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет: > > > Hi, Nikolay > > > > > > > > > I’ve tested vote_3_step_1 and vote_3_step_2 scripts from [1] and they are > > > OK. > > > My configuration: > > > - generated gnupg key (~/.gnupg) > > > - Ubuntu 16.04 (with latest updates) > > > - packages: subversion git unzip alien rpm fakeroot gcc dpkg-sig > > > gnupg-agent > > > > > > Please double check you environment for release procedure > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1914618&buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote&tab=artifacts#!hkm8d5gqy4ii > > > > > > > > > > On 20 Sep 2018, at 17:39, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > I've started to write Wiki article for a future Release Managers. > > > > Since release process doesn't described anywhere public I do it while > > > > releasing 2.7: > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+manager+Notes > > > > > > > > Any feedback is strongly appreciated. > > > > > > > > I've tried to walk through vote steps in release procedure and found > > > > some issues: > > > > > > > > Some of them we already fixed with Petr Ivanod and Anton Vinogradov. > > > > Thank you, guys! > > > > > > > > For now, I stuck on the following issue: > > > > > > > > `vote_3_step_1\[packages\]build.sh` is broken. > > > > I got following output: > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > RPM build errors: > > > > bogus date in %changelog: Fri Jun 17 2018 Peter Ivanov > > > > - 2.6.0-1 > > > > File not found: > > > > /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm/BUILDROOT/apache-ignite-2.6.0-1.x86_64/usr/share/doc/apache-ignite-2.6.0/MIGRATION_GUIDE.txt > > > > + processTrap > > > > + echo 'Removing temporary work directories: /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm' > > > > Removing temporary work directories: /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm > > > > + rm -rf /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > 1. Script uses version number 2.6 somehow. > > > > 2. It fails because MIGRATION_GUIDE file doesn't exists. > > > > > > > > Is there anybody who can help with this issue? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 - Release Procedure issues
I’ve checked the changes and they are good both on old and latest versions of Ubuntu. However, I’ve stumbled upon another problem — GPG: current release scripts do not honour latest GPG versions. I can introduce corresponding changes, but question is — should release script check for GPG version and have 2 version of signing commands or just warn user about old version of GPG and exit? > On 21 Sep 2018, at 19:46, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > Hello, Petr. > > Seems that rpm build script doesn't work on a lates Ubuntu Linux. > I've created a ticket [1] and found a fix for it [2] > > With one line fix rpm build is working under my environment. > Can you check fix on your environment? > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9665 > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4808 > > В Пт, 21/09/2018 в 16:22 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет: >> Hi, Nikolay >> >> >> I’ve tested vote_3_step_1 and vote_3_step_2 scripts from [1] and they are OK. >> My configuration: >> - generated gnupg key (~/.gnupg) >> - Ubuntu 16.04 (with latest updates) >> - packages: subversion git unzip alien rpm fakeroot gcc dpkg-sig gnupg-agent >> >> Please double check you environment for release procedure >> >> >> [1] >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1914618&buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote&tab=artifacts#!hkm8d5gqy4ii >> >> >>> On 20 Sep 2018, at 17:39, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: >>> >>> Hello, Igniters. >>> >>> I've started to write Wiki article for a future Release Managers. >>> Since release process doesn't described anywhere public I do it while >>> releasing 2.7: >>> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+manager+Notes >>> >>> Any feedback is strongly appreciated. >>> >>> I've tried to walk through vote steps in release procedure and found some >>> issues: >>> >>> Some of them we already fixed with Petr Ivanod and Anton Vinogradov. >>> Thank you, guys! >>> >>> For now, I stuck on the following issue: >>> >>> `vote_3_step_1\[packages\]build.sh` is broken. >>> I got following output: >>> >>> ``` >>> RPM build errors: >>> bogus date in %changelog: Fri Jun 17 2018 Peter Ivanov >>> - 2.6.0-1 >>> File not found: >>> /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm/BUILDROOT/apache-ignite-2.6.0-1.x86_64/usr/share/doc/apache-ignite-2.6.0/MIGRATION_GUIDE.txt >>> + processTrap >>> + echo 'Removing temporary work directories: /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm' >>> Removing temporary work directories: /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm >>> + rm -rf /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm >>> ``` >>> >>> 1. Script uses version number 2.6 somehow. >>> 2. It fails because MIGRATION_GUIDE file doesn't exists. >>> >>> Is there anybody who can help with this issue? >>> >>> >>> >>
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 - Release Procedure issues
Hello, Petr. Seems that rpm build script doesn't work on a lates Ubuntu Linux. I've created a ticket [1] and found a fix for it [2] With one line fix rpm build is working under my environment. Can you check fix on your environment? [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9665 [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4808 В Пт, 21/09/2018 в 16:22 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет: > Hi, Nikolay > > > I’ve tested vote_3_step_1 and vote_3_step_2 scripts from [1] and they are OK. > My configuration: > - generated gnupg key (~/.gnupg) > - Ubuntu 16.04 (with latest updates) > - packages: subversion git unzip alien rpm fakeroot gcc dpkg-sig gnupg-agent > > Please double check you environment for release procedure > > > [1] > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1914618&buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote&tab=artifacts#!hkm8d5gqy4ii > > > > On 20 Sep 2018, at 17:39, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > I've started to write Wiki article for a future Release Managers. > > Since release process doesn't described anywhere public I do it while > > releasing 2.7: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+manager+Notes > > > > Any feedback is strongly appreciated. > > > > I've tried to walk through vote steps in release procedure and found some > > issues: > > > > Some of them we already fixed with Petr Ivanod and Anton Vinogradov. > > Thank you, guys! > > > > For now, I stuck on the following issue: > > > > `vote_3_step_1\[packages\]build.sh` is broken. > > I got following output: > > > > ``` > > RPM build errors: > >bogus date in %changelog: Fri Jun 17 2018 Peter Ivanov > > - 2.6.0-1 > >File not found: > > /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm/BUILDROOT/apache-ignite-2.6.0-1.x86_64/usr/share/doc/apache-ignite-2.6.0/MIGRATION_GUIDE.txt > > + processTrap > > + echo 'Removing temporary work directories: /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm' > > Removing temporary work directories: /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm > > + rm -rf /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm > > ``` > > > > 1. Script uses version number 2.6 somehow. > > 2. It fails because MIGRATION_GUIDE file doesn't exists. > > > > Is there anybody who can help with this issue? > > > > > > > > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 - Release Procedure issues
Hi, Nikolay I’ve tested vote_3_step_1 and vote_3_step_2 scripts from [1] and they are OK. My configuration: - generated gnupg key (~/.gnupg) - Ubuntu 16.04 (with latest updates) - packages: subversion git unzip alien rpm fakeroot gcc dpkg-sig gnupg-agent Please double check you environment for release procedure [1] https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1914618&buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote&tab=artifacts#!hkm8d5gqy4ii > On 20 Sep 2018, at 17:39, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > Hello, Igniters. > > I've started to write Wiki article for a future Release Managers. > Since release process doesn't described anywhere public I do it while > releasing 2.7: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+manager+Notes > > Any feedback is strongly appreciated. > > I've tried to walk through vote steps in release procedure and found some > issues: > > Some of them we already fixed with Petr Ivanod and Anton Vinogradov. > Thank you, guys! > > For now, I stuck on the following issue: > > `vote_3_step_1\[packages\]build.sh` is broken. > I got following output: > > ``` > RPM build errors: >bogus date in %changelog: Fri Jun 17 2018 Peter Ivanov > - 2.6.0-1 >File not found: > /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm/BUILDROOT/apache-ignite-2.6.0-1.x86_64/usr/share/doc/apache-ignite-2.6.0/MIGRATION_GUIDE.txt > + processTrap > + echo 'Removing temporary work directories: /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm' > Removing temporary work directories: /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm > + rm -rf /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm > ``` > > 1. Script uses version number 2.6 somehow. > 2. It fails because MIGRATION_GUIDE file doesn't exists. > > Is there anybody who can help with this issue? > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hello, Igniters. I ping assigners in all tickets hase been planned for 2.7 and work is started. I plan to move all tickets in 'Open' state to 2.8 on Moday, 24 September. Please, respond, if you have any objections. В Ср, 19/09/2018 в 16:02 +0300, Andrey Gura пишет: > Nikolay, > > since we talk about scope freeze all you need now just create > ignite-2.7 branch. We still can have tickets targeted to 2.7 release > in progress. So you shouldn't move tickets to 2.8 because they can be > targeted to 2.7 intentionally and will be merged to master and > ignite-2.7 branches. > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > Vova, thank you for pointing this out. > > > > I ask all community members to iterate over assigned tickets. > > Please, move your tickets to 2.8 release if work is still in progress. > > At the end of the day, I will do it by myself and tomorrow we should have > > release scope prepared. > > > > > > ср, 19 сент. 2018 г. в 12:08, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > My point was not about code freeze, but about scope freeze, what means > > > that > > > starting from this point AI 2.7 release should not receive any commits > > > which doesn't relate to it. > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:55 AM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > > > > > > > Vova, > > > > > > > > AFAIK, codefreeze was not announced yet. > > > > Correct me in case I missed this. > > > > > > > > Now, Nikolay finishing checks that he's able to perform release > > > > > > (everything > > > > installed and properly configured). > > > > So, I recommend him to mention this check here to solve any > > > > misunderstanding in case some branches or tags related to 2.7 will be > > > > > > found > > > > before we announced codefreeze. > > > > > > > > ср, 19 сент. 2018 г. в 11:45, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean under "preparation to real 2.7". It is already real, > > > > > > we > > > > > reached formal code freeze phase we agreed on. At this point we need > > > > > to > > > > > exclude non-2.7 commits, otherwise we will not be able to come to > > > > > > stable > > > > > branch in two weeks. > > > > > For this reason creating a branch for 2.7 at the moment is perfectly > > > > > > > > valid > > > > > thing. This is how we made releases previously. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:59 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Paul. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are 2 PRs linked to that ticket. Who is reviewing your > > > > > > changes? > > > > > > > > > > > > Branch for 2.7 is still master, so if your changes are reviewed and > > > > > > accepted soon it will be in 2.7. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 16:22, Paul Anderson : > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, may I ask for IGNITE-9298 to be included in 2.7 pls > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:03 PM Nikolay Izhikov < > > > > > > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, folks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will follow them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:31 +0300, Anton Vinogradov пишет: > > > > > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) *Do not* create ignite-2.7 branch until we're not started > > > > > > > > > > > > > > preparation > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > real 2.7. > > > > > > > > > Use some temporary branch for this check instead, eg. > > > > > > > > > ignite-2.7-release-test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Please make sure you'll not cause real release actions > > > > > > (maven > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > and so on). > > > > > > > > > Perform only vote_* steps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Make sure you'll remove all tags, branches, and other RC > > > > > > > > > > artifacts > > > > > > > > after > > > > > > > > > check. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Mark this release as RC0 to make sure it will be clear to > > > > > > > > > > > > everybody > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > it's a check. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 13:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it is an Ignite release, then it has to pass through the > > > > > > > > vote. > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > not, > > > > > > > > > > then you can do the test without publishing or uploading the > > > > > > > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:18 PM Petr Ivanov < > > > > > > > > mr.wei...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case of TC questions — ask me.
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 - Release Procedure issues
The file is in place: https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/MIGRATION_GUIDE.txt Tho, I think we could put something there. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev чт, 20 сент. 2018 г. в 17:39, Nikolay Izhikov : > Hello, Igniters. > > I've started to write Wiki article for a future Release Managers. > Since release process doesn't described anywhere public I do it while > releasing 2.7: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+manager+Notes > > Any feedback is strongly appreciated. > > I've tried to walk through vote steps in release procedure and found some > issues: > > Some of them we already fixed with Petr Ivanod and Anton Vinogradov. > Thank you, guys! > > For now, I stuck on the following issue: > > `vote_3_step_1\[packages\]build.sh` is broken. > I got following output: > > ``` > RPM build errors: > bogus date in %changelog: Fri Jun 17 2018 Peter Ivanov < > mr.wei...@gmail.com> - 2.6.0-1 > File not found: > /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm/BUILDROOT/apache-ignite-2.6.0-1.x86_64/usr/share/doc/apache-ignite-2.6.0/MIGRATION_GUIDE.txt > + processTrap > + echo 'Removing temporary work directories: /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm' > Removing temporary work directories: /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm > + rm -rf /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm > ``` > > 1. Script uses version number 2.6 somehow. > 2. It fails because MIGRATION_GUIDE file doesn't exists. > > Is there anybody who can help with this issue? > > > >
Apache Ignite 2.7 - Release Procedure issues
Hello, Igniters. I've started to write Wiki article for a future Release Managers. Since release process doesn't described anywhere public I do it while releasing 2.7: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+manager+Notes Any feedback is strongly appreciated. I've tried to walk through vote steps in release procedure and found some issues: Some of them we already fixed with Petr Ivanod and Anton Vinogradov. Thank you, guys! For now, I stuck on the following issue: `vote_3_step_1\[packages\]build.sh` is broken. I got following output: ``` RPM build errors: bogus date in %changelog: Fri Jun 17 2018 Peter Ivanov - 2.6.0-1 File not found: /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm/BUILDROOT/apache-ignite-2.6.0-1.x86_64/usr/share/doc/apache-ignite-2.6.0/MIGRATION_GUIDE.txt + processTrap + echo 'Removing temporary work directories: /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm' Removing temporary work directories: /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm + rm -rf /tmp/tmp.EezfJVTwLm ``` 1. Script uses version number 2.6 somehow. 2. It fails because MIGRATION_GUIDE file doesn't exists. Is there anybody who can help with this issue? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
yep, someone can use his or her @gridgain address, even it is not best practice and Apache recommends to avoid it. It is still an individual in the Community. I've checked the history of the ticket and there was a strange reassignment in it. we'll try to find out if it is under review. Hopefully, contributor assigned this ticket can come and comment. чт, 20 сент. 2018 г. в 12:48, Paul Anderson : > ok... thought I saw gridgain interaction in an email Will start a new > thread with my questions on test code or comment on Jira > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:39 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > Hi Paul, > > > > Please be more specific, GridGain can't take part in the community, only > > individual contributors can. So I don't understand which contributor was > > pulling 9298. > > > > Any feedback is appreciated, especially constructive, cause it helps in > > developing a product in the right direction. But we can't enforce someone > > to do something faster or in more right manner. Why don't suggest help > > instead? > > > > Sincerely, > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > чт, 20 сент. 2018 г. в 12:29, Paul Anderson : > > > > > Dimitiry, Re: IGNITE-9298 ... this is my first contribution, don't know > > who > > > is reviewing the code, I did see that it was pulled by GridGain. > > > > > > Additionally I was not happy about the test code, I followed what was > > there > > > before but it doesn't seem right. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:17 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > As always, our constraint is a review. We as the community seems to > > agree > > > > that review and patch commenting is a major contribution, but very > few > > of > > > > us doing a review, and 92 tickets are in Patch Available state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Issues+waiting+for+review > > > > > > > > > > > > Everyone can help, so tests run can be checked (e.g. in the TC Bot); > > code > > > > style; change itself is clear and relates to issue. Don't forget to > > share > > > > positive things that you like in PR/Change, does not point to > problems > > > > only. > > > > > > > > So if a ticket is accepted and merged there is usually no reason to > > move > > > it > > > > to the next version instead of the nearest one. > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > чт, 20 сент. 2018 г. в 3:54, Ray : > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > Is there any specific reason why this ticket is removed from 2.7 > > scope? > > > > > I think this ticket is important for both usability and > performance. > > > > > Without this ticket, we have to create an index manually identical > to > > > > > primary key if we want to use SQL query. > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8386 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
ok... thought I saw gridgain interaction in an email Will start a new thread with my questions on test code or comment on Jira On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:39 AM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Please be more specific, GridGain can't take part in the community, only > individual contributors can. So I don't understand which contributor was > pulling 9298. > > Any feedback is appreciated, especially constructive, cause it helps in > developing a product in the right direction. But we can't enforce someone > to do something faster or in more right manner. Why don't suggest help > instead? > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > чт, 20 сент. 2018 г. в 12:29, Paul Anderson : > > > Dimitiry, Re: IGNITE-9298 ... this is my first contribution, don't know > who > > is reviewing the code, I did see that it was pulled by GridGain. > > > > Additionally I was not happy about the test code, I followed what was > there > > before but it doesn't seem right. > > > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:17 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > As always, our constraint is a review. We as the community seems to > agree > > > that review and patch commenting is a major contribution, but very few > of > > > us doing a review, and 92 tickets are in Patch Available state. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Issues+waiting+for+review > > > > > > > > > Everyone can help, so tests run can be checked (e.g. in the TC Bot); > code > > > style; change itself is clear and relates to issue. Don't forget to > share > > > positive things that you like in PR/Change, does not point to problems > > > only. > > > > > > So if a ticket is accepted and merged there is usually no reason to > move > > it > > > to the next version instead of the nearest one. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > чт, 20 сент. 2018 г. в 3:54, Ray : > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > Is there any specific reason why this ticket is removed from 2.7 > scope? > > > > I think this ticket is important for both usability and performance. > > > > Without this ticket, we have to create an index manually identical to > > > > primary key if we want to use SQL query. > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8386 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hi Paul, Please be more specific, GridGain can't take part in the community, only individual contributors can. So I don't understand which contributor was pulling 9298. Any feedback is appreciated, especially constructive, cause it helps in developing a product in the right direction. But we can't enforce someone to do something faster or in more right manner. Why don't suggest help instead? Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov чт, 20 сент. 2018 г. в 12:29, Paul Anderson : > Dimitiry, Re: IGNITE-9298 ... this is my first contribution, don't know who > is reviewing the code, I did see that it was pulled by GridGain. > > Additionally I was not happy about the test code, I followed what was there > before but it doesn't seem right. > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:17 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > As always, our constraint is a review. We as the community seems to agree > > that review and patch commenting is a major contribution, but very few of > > us doing a review, and 92 tickets are in Patch Available state. > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Issues+waiting+for+review > > > > > > Everyone can help, so tests run can be checked (e.g. in the TC Bot); code > > style; change itself is clear and relates to issue. Don't forget to share > > positive things that you like in PR/Change, does not point to problems > > only. > > > > So if a ticket is accepted and merged there is usually no reason to move > it > > to the next version instead of the nearest one. > > > > Sincerely, > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > чт, 20 сент. 2018 г. в 3:54, Ray : > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > Is there any specific reason why this ticket is removed from 2.7 scope? > > > I think this ticket is important for both usability and performance. > > > Without this ticket, we have to create an index manually identical to > > > primary key if we want to use SQL query. > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8386 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ > > > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Dimitiry, Re: IGNITE-9298 ... this is my first contribution, don't know who is reviewing the code, I did see that it was pulled by GridGain. Additionally I was not happy about the test code, I followed what was there before but it doesn't seem right. On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:17 AM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > Hi, > > As always, our constraint is a review. We as the community seems to agree > that review and patch commenting is a major contribution, but very few of > us doing a review, and 92 tickets are in Patch Available state. > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Issues+waiting+for+review > > > Everyone can help, so tests run can be checked (e.g. in the TC Bot); code > style; change itself is clear and relates to issue. Don't forget to share > positive things that you like in PR/Change, does not point to problems > only. > > So if a ticket is accepted and merged there is usually no reason to move it > to the next version instead of the nearest one. > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > чт, 20 сент. 2018 г. в 3:54, Ray : > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > Is there any specific reason why this ticket is removed from 2.7 scope? > > I think this ticket is important for both usability and performance. > > Without this ticket, we have to create an index manually identical to > > primary key if we want to use SQL query. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8386 > > > > > > > > -- > > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hi, As always, our constraint is a review. We as the community seems to agree that review and patch commenting is a major contribution, but very few of us doing a review, and 92 tickets are in Patch Available state. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Issues+waiting+for+review Everyone can help, so tests run can be checked (e.g. in the TC Bot); code style; change itself is clear and relates to issue. Don't forget to share positive things that you like in PR/Change, does not point to problems only. So if a ticket is accepted and merged there is usually no reason to move it to the next version instead of the nearest one. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov чт, 20 сент. 2018 г. в 3:54, Ray : > Hello, Igniters. > > Is there any specific reason why this ticket is removed from 2.7 scope? > I think this ticket is important for both usability and performance. > Without this ticket, we have to create an index manually identical to > primary key if we want to use SQL query. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8386 > > > > -- > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hello, Igniters. Is there any specific reason why this ticket is removed from 2.7 scope? I think this ticket is important for both usability and performance. Without this ticket, we have to create an index manually identical to primary key if we want to use SQL query. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8386 -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Nikolay, since we talk about scope freeze all you need now just create ignite-2.7 branch. We still can have tickets targeted to 2.7 release in progress. So you shouldn't move tickets to 2.8 because they can be targeted to 2.7 intentionally and will be merged to master and ignite-2.7 branches. On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > Hello, Igniters. > > Vova, thank you for pointing this out. > > I ask all community members to iterate over assigned tickets. > Please, move your tickets to 2.8 release if work is still in progress. > At the end of the day, I will do it by myself and tomorrow we should have > release scope prepared. > > > ср, 19 сент. 2018 г. в 12:08, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > My point was not about code freeze, but about scope freeze, what means that > > starting from this point AI 2.7 release should not receive any commits > > which doesn't relate to it. > > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:55 AM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > > > > > Vova, > > > > > > AFAIK, codefreeze was not announced yet. > > > Correct me in case I missed this. > > > > > > Now, Nikolay finishing checks that he's able to perform release > > (everything > > > installed and properly configured). > > > So, I recommend him to mention this check here to solve any > > > misunderstanding in case some branches or tags related to 2.7 will be > > found > > > before we announced codefreeze. > > > > > > ср, 19 сент. 2018 г. в 11:45, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > > > What do you mean under "preparation to real 2.7". It is already real, > > we > > > > reached formal code freeze phase we agreed on. At this point we need to > > > > exclude non-2.7 commits, otherwise we will not be able to come to > > stable > > > > branch in two weeks. > > > > For this reason creating a branch for 2.7 at the moment is perfectly > > > valid > > > > thing. This is how we made releases previously. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:59 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Paul. > > > > > > > > > > There are 2 PRs linked to that ticket. Who is reviewing your changes? > > > > > > > > > > Branch for 2.7 is still master, so if your changes are reviewed and > > > > > accepted soon it will be in 2.7. > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 16:22, Paul Anderson : > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, may I ask for IGNITE-9298 to be included in 2.7 pls > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:03 PM Nikolay Izhikov < > > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, folks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will follow them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:31 +0300, Anton Vinogradov пишет: > > > > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) *Do not* create ignite-2.7 branch until we're not started > > > > > > preparation > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > real 2.7. > > > > > > > > Use some temporary branch for this check instead, eg. > > > > > > > > ignite-2.7-release-test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Please make sure you'll not cause real release actions > > (maven > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > and so on). > > > > > > > > Perform only vote_* steps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Make sure you'll remove all tags, branches, and other RC > > > > artifacts > > > > > > > after > > > > > > > > check. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Mark this release as RC0 to make sure it will be clear to > > > > > everybody > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > it's a check. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 13:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it is an Ignite release, then it has to pass through the > > > vote. > > > > > If > > > > > > > not, > > > > > > > > > then you can do the test without publishing or uploading the > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:18 PM Petr Ivanov < > > > mr.wei...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case of TC questions — ask me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:16, Nikolay Izhikov < > > > > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Petr. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to make ignite-2.7 branch today. > > > > > > > > > > > And execute release procedure based on this branch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, ignite-2.7 branch will be copy of master until > > > code > > > > > > freeze > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:13 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет: > > > > > > > > > > > > Will it be just a test or there is alrea
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hello, Igniters. Vova, thank you for pointing this out. I ask all community members to iterate over assigned tickets. Please, move your tickets to 2.8 release if work is still in progress. At the end of the day, I will do it by myself and tomorrow we should have release scope prepared. ср, 19 сент. 2018 г. в 12:08, Vladimir Ozerov : > My point was not about code freeze, but about scope freeze, what means that > starting from this point AI 2.7 release should not receive any commits > which doesn't relate to it. > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:55 AM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > > > Vova, > > > > AFAIK, codefreeze was not announced yet. > > Correct me in case I missed this. > > > > Now, Nikolay finishing checks that he's able to perform release > (everything > > installed and properly configured). > > So, I recommend him to mention this check here to solve any > > misunderstanding in case some branches or tags related to 2.7 will be > found > > before we announced codefreeze. > > > > ср, 19 сент. 2018 г. в 11:45, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > What do you mean under "preparation to real 2.7". It is already real, > we > > > reached formal code freeze phase we agreed on. At this point we need to > > > exclude non-2.7 commits, otherwise we will not be able to come to > stable > > > branch in two weeks. > > > For this reason creating a branch for 2.7 at the moment is perfectly > > valid > > > thing. This is how we made releases previously. > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:59 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Paul. > > > > > > > > There are 2 PRs linked to that ticket. Who is reviewing your changes? > > > > > > > > Branch for 2.7 is still master, so if your changes are reviewed and > > > > accepted soon it will be in 2.7. > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 16:22, Paul Anderson : > > > > > > > > > Hi, may I ask for IGNITE-9298 to be included in 2.7 pls > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:03 PM Nikolay Izhikov < > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, folks. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > I will follow them. > > > > > > > > > > > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:31 +0300, Anton Vinogradov пишет: > > > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) *Do not* create ignite-2.7 branch until we're not started > > > > > preparation > > > > > > to > > > > > > > real 2.7. > > > > > > > Use some temporary branch for this check instead, eg. > > > > > > > ignite-2.7-release-test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Please make sure you'll not cause real release actions > (maven > > > > > release > > > > > > > and so on). > > > > > > > Perform only vote_* steps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Make sure you'll remove all tags, branches, and other RC > > > artifacts > > > > > > after > > > > > > > check. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Mark this release as RC0 to make sure it will be clear to > > > > everybody > > > > > > that > > > > > > > it's a check. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 13:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it is an Ignite release, then it has to pass through the > > vote. > > > > If > > > > > > not, > > > > > > > > then you can do the test without publishing or uploading the > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:18 PM Petr Ivanov < > > mr.wei...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case of TC questions — ask me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:16, Nikolay Izhikov < > > > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Petr. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to make ignite-2.7 branch today. > > > > > > > > > > And execute release procedure based on this branch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, ignite-2.7 branch will be copy of master until > > code > > > > > freeze > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:13 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет: > > > > > > > > > > > Will it be just a test or there is already ignite-2.7 > > > branch? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fabric removal related TC modifications are not ready > > yet, > > > > and > > > > > > code is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not in master. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:07, Nikolay Izhikov < > > > > > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to start and release procedures and make an > RC1 > > > > build. > > > > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
My point was not about code freeze, but about scope freeze, what means that starting from this point AI 2.7 release should not receive any commits which doesn't relate to it. On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:55 AM Anton Vinogradov wrote: > Vova, > > AFAIK, codefreeze was not announced yet. > Correct me in case I missed this. > > Now, Nikolay finishing checks that he's able to perform release (everything > installed and properly configured). > So, I recommend him to mention this check here to solve any > misunderstanding in case some branches or tags related to 2.7 will be found > before we announced codefreeze. > > ср, 19 сент. 2018 г. в 11:45, Vladimir Ozerov : > > > Anton, > > > > What do you mean under "preparation to real 2.7". It is already real, we > > reached formal code freeze phase we agreed on. At this point we need to > > exclude non-2.7 commits, otherwise we will not be able to come to stable > > branch in two weeks. > > For this reason creating a branch for 2.7 at the moment is perfectly > valid > > thing. This is how we made releases previously. > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:59 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Paul. > > > > > > There are 2 PRs linked to that ticket. Who is reviewing your changes? > > > > > > Branch for 2.7 is still master, so if your changes are reviewed and > > > accepted soon it will be in 2.7. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 16:22, Paul Anderson : > > > > > > > Hi, may I ask for IGNITE-9298 to be included in 2.7 pls > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:03 PM Nikolay Izhikov > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello, folks. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments. > > > > > > > > > > I will follow them. > > > > > > > > > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:31 +0300, Anton Vinogradov пишет: > > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) *Do not* create ignite-2.7 branch until we're not started > > > > preparation > > > > > to > > > > > > real 2.7. > > > > > > Use some temporary branch for this check instead, eg. > > > > > > ignite-2.7-release-test > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Please make sure you'll not cause real release actions (maven > > > > release > > > > > > and so on). > > > > > > Perform only vote_* steps. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Make sure you'll remove all tags, branches, and other RC > > artifacts > > > > > after > > > > > > check. > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Mark this release as RC0 to make sure it will be clear to > > > everybody > > > > > that > > > > > > it's a check. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 13:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it is an Ignite release, then it has to pass through the > vote. > > > If > > > > > not, > > > > > > > then you can do the test without publishing or uploading the > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:18 PM Petr Ivanov < > mr.wei...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case of TC questions — ask me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:16, Nikolay Izhikov < > > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Petr. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to make ignite-2.7 branch today. > > > > > > > > > And execute release procedure based on this branch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, ignite-2.7 branch will be copy of master until > code > > > > freeze > > > > > > > > > > > > > > date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:13 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет: > > > > > > > > > > Will it be just a test or there is already ignite-2.7 > > branch? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fabric removal related TC modifications are not ready > yet, > > > and > > > > > code is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not in master. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:07, Nikolay Izhikov < > > > > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to start and release procedures and make an RC1 > > > build. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has a 2 intention: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. I want to walk through all release steps to make > sure > > > they > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > works for me. > > > > > > > > > > > So I will be fully ready on release date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. We have updated some dependencies in 2.7 and we need > > to > > > > > make sure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > binary build is still workable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Пт, 14/09/2018 в 18:52 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет: >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Vova, AFAIK, codefreeze was not announced yet. Correct me in case I missed this. Now, Nikolay finishing checks that he's able to perform release (everything installed and properly configured). So, I recommend him to mention this check here to solve any misunderstanding in case some branches or tags related to 2.7 will be found before we announced codefreeze. ср, 19 сент. 2018 г. в 11:45, Vladimir Ozerov : > Anton, > > What do you mean under "preparation to real 2.7". It is already real, we > reached formal code freeze phase we agreed on. At this point we need to > exclude non-2.7 commits, otherwise we will not be able to come to stable > branch in two weeks. > For this reason creating a branch for 2.7 at the moment is perfectly valid > thing. This is how we made releases previously. > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:59 PM Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > Hi Paul. > > > > There are 2 PRs linked to that ticket. Who is reviewing your changes? > > > > Branch for 2.7 is still master, so if your changes are reviewed and > > accepted soon it will be in 2.7. > > > > Sincerely, > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 16:22, Paul Anderson : > > > > > Hi, may I ask for IGNITE-9298 to be included in 2.7 pls > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:03 PM Nikolay Izhikov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, folks. > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments. > > > > > > > > I will follow them. > > > > > > > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:31 +0300, Anton Vinogradov пишет: > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > 1) *Do not* create ignite-2.7 branch until we're not started > > > preparation > > > > to > > > > > real 2.7. > > > > > Use some temporary branch for this check instead, eg. > > > > > ignite-2.7-release-test > > > > > > > > > > 2) Please make sure you'll not cause real release actions (maven > > > release > > > > > and so on). > > > > > Perform only vote_* steps. > > > > > > > > > > 3) Make sure you'll remove all tags, branches, and other RC > artifacts > > > > after > > > > > check. > > > > > > > > > > 4) Mark this release as RC0 to make sure it will be clear to > > everybody > > > > that > > > > > it's a check. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 13:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > If it is an Ignite release, then it has to pass through the vote. > > If > > > > not, > > > > > > then you can do the test without publishing or uploading the > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:18 PM Petr Ivanov > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case of TC questions — ask me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:16, Nikolay Izhikov < > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Petr. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to make ignite-2.7 branch today. > > > > > > > > And execute release procedure based on this branch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, ignite-2.7 branch will be copy of master until code > > > freeze > > > > > > > > > > > > date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:13 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет: > > > > > > > > > Will it be just a test or there is already ignite-2.7 > branch? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fabric removal related TC modifications are not ready yet, > > and > > > > code is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not in master. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:07, Nikolay Izhikov < > > > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to start and release procedures and make an RC1 > > build. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has a 2 intention: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. I want to walk through all release steps to make sure > > they > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > works for me. > > > > > > > > > > So I will be fully ready on release date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. We have updated some dependencies in 2.7 and we need > to > > > > make sure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > binary build is still workable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Пт, 14/09/2018 в 18:52 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет: > > > > > > > > > > > We already have all the mechanics in place to work with > > > > properties - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we use > > > > > > > > > > > ignite.build and ignite.revision from ignite.properties > > > > which are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adjusted > > > > > > > > > > > during the build in the binary package. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should I create the ticket if there are no objections? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 14 сент. 2018 г. в 13:22, Ilya Kasnacheev < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>:
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Anton, What do you mean under "preparation to real 2.7". It is already real, we reached formal code freeze phase we agreed on. At this point we need to exclude non-2.7 commits, otherwise we will not be able to come to stable branch in two weeks. For this reason creating a branch for 2.7 at the moment is perfectly valid thing. This is how we made releases previously. On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:59 PM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote: > Hi Paul. > > There are 2 PRs linked to that ticket. Who is reviewing your changes? > > Branch for 2.7 is still master, so if your changes are reviewed and > accepted soon it will be in 2.7. > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 16:22, Paul Anderson : > > > Hi, may I ask for IGNITE-9298 to be included in 2.7 pls > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:03 PM Nikolay Izhikov > > wrote: > > > > > Hello, folks. > > > > > > Thanks for the comments. > > > > > > I will follow them. > > > > > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:31 +0300, Anton Vinogradov пишет: > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > 1) *Do not* create ignite-2.7 branch until we're not started > > preparation > > > to > > > > real 2.7. > > > > Use some temporary branch for this check instead, eg. > > > > ignite-2.7-release-test > > > > > > > > 2) Please make sure you'll not cause real release actions (maven > > release > > > > and so on). > > > > Perform only vote_* steps. > > > > > > > > 3) Make sure you'll remove all tags, branches, and other RC artifacts > > > after > > > > check. > > > > > > > > 4) Mark this release as RC0 to make sure it will be clear to > everybody > > > that > > > > it's a check. > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 13:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > dsetrak...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > > > > If it is an Ignite release, then it has to pass through the vote. > If > > > not, > > > > > then you can do the test without publishing or uploading the > release. > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:18 PM Petr Ivanov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > > > > > > > In case of TC questions — ask me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:16, Nikolay Izhikov > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Petr. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to make ignite-2.7 branch today. > > > > > > > And execute release procedure based on this branch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, ignite-2.7 branch will be copy of master until code > > freeze > > > > > > > > > > date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:13 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет: > > > > > > > > Will it be just a test or there is already ignite-2.7 branch? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fabric removal related TC modifications are not ready yet, > and > > > code is > > > > > > > > > > > > not in master. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:07, Nikolay Izhikov < > > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to start and release procedures and make an RC1 > build. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has a 2 intention: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. I want to walk through all release steps to make sure > they > > > all > > > > > > > > > > > > works for me. > > > > > > > > > So I will be fully ready on release date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. We have updated some dependencies in 2.7 and we need to > > > make sure > > > > > > > > > > > > binary build is still workable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Пт, 14/09/2018 в 18:52 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет: > > > > > > > > > > We already have all the mechanics in place to work with > > > properties - > > > > > > > > > > > > we use > > > > > > > > > > ignite.build and ignite.revision from ignite.properties > > > which are > > > > > > > > > > > > adjusted > > > > > > > > > > during the build in the binary package. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should I create the ticket if there are no objections? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 14 сент. 2018 г. в 13:22, Ilya Kasnacheev < > > > > > > > > > > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So now there's an issue that this script makes source > > > change after > > > > > > > > > > > > every > > > > > > > > > > > build, show up in git status. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What we could do to it: > > > > > > > > > > > - Commit the changes after the build, once. In hopes > that > > > it won't > > > > > > > > > > > > change > > > > > > > > > > > very often. With benefit that we could do that right > now, > > > before > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > code > > > > > > > > > > > freeze. > > > > > > > > > > > - Move these values to a properties file from both > > pom.xml > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > IgniteProvider.
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hi Paul. There are 2 PRs linked to that ticket. Who is reviewing your changes? Branch for 2.7 is still master, so if your changes are reviewed and accepted soon it will be in 2.7. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 16:22, Paul Anderson : > Hi, may I ask for IGNITE-9298 to be included in 2.7 pls > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:03 PM Nikolay Izhikov > wrote: > > > Hello, folks. > > > > Thanks for the comments. > > > > I will follow them. > > > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:31 +0300, Anton Vinogradov пишет: > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > 1) *Do not* create ignite-2.7 branch until we're not started > preparation > > to > > > real 2.7. > > > Use some temporary branch for this check instead, eg. > > > ignite-2.7-release-test > > > > > > 2) Please make sure you'll not cause real release actions (maven > release > > > and so on). > > > Perform only vote_* steps. > > > > > > 3) Make sure you'll remove all tags, branches, and other RC artifacts > > after > > > check. > > > > > > 4) Mark this release as RC0 to make sure it will be clear to everybody > > that > > > it's a check. > > > > > > > > > вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 13:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan >: > > > > > > > If it is an Ignite release, then it has to pass through the vote. If > > not, > > > > then you can do the test without publishing or uploading the release. > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:18 PM Petr Ivanov > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > > > > > In case of TC questions — ask me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:16, Nikolay Izhikov > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Petr. > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to make ignite-2.7 branch today. > > > > > > And execute release procedure based on this branch. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, ignite-2.7 branch will be copy of master until code > freeze > > > > > > > > date. > > > > > > > > > > > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:13 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет: > > > > > > > Will it be just a test or there is already ignite-2.7 branch? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fabric removal related TC modifications are not ready yet, and > > code is > > > > > > > > > > not in master. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:07, Nikolay Izhikov < > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to start and release procedures and make an RC1 build. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has a 2 intention: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. I want to walk through all release steps to make sure they > > all > > > > > > > > > > works for me. > > > > > > > > So I will be fully ready on release date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. We have updated some dependencies in 2.7 and we need to > > make sure > > > > > > > > > > binary build is still workable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Пт, 14/09/2018 в 18:52 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет: > > > > > > > > > We already have all the mechanics in place to work with > > properties - > > > > > > > > > > we use > > > > > > > > > ignite.build and ignite.revision from ignite.properties > > which are > > > > > > > > > > adjusted > > > > > > > > > during the build in the binary package. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should I create the ticket if there are no objections? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 14 сент. 2018 г. в 13:22, Ilya Kasnacheev < > > > > > > > > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So now there's an issue that this script makes source > > change after > > > > > > > > > > every > > > > > > > > > > build, show up in git status. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What we could do to it: > > > > > > > > > > - Commit the changes after the build, once. In hopes that > > it won't > > > > > > > > > > change > > > > > > > > > > very often. With benefit that we could do that right now, > > before > > > > > > > > the > > > > > code > > > > > > > > > > freeze. > > > > > > > > > > - Move these values to a properties file from both > pom.xml > > and > > > > > > > > > > IgniteProvider.java. Any problems with this approach? > > We'll just > > > > > > > > > > read them > > > > > > > > > > from classpath properties file. > > > > > > > > > > - Update the links in the file once and remove them from > > build > > > > > > > > > > process. Why > > > > > > > > > > were they added to build process in the first place - to > > make them > > > > > > > > > > configurable during build? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 11 сент. 2018 г. в 5:53, Roman Shtykh < > > rsht...@yahoo.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ilya, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The "latest" version is the default, and resolved by
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hi, may I ask for IGNITE-9298 to be included in 2.7 pls On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:03 PM Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > Hello, folks. > > Thanks for the comments. > > I will follow them. > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:31 +0300, Anton Vinogradov пишет: > > Nikolay, > > > > 1) *Do not* create ignite-2.7 branch until we're not started preparation > to > > real 2.7. > > Use some temporary branch for this check instead, eg. > > ignite-2.7-release-test > > > > 2) Please make sure you'll not cause real release actions (maven release > > and so on). > > Perform only vote_* steps. > > > > 3) Make sure you'll remove all tags, branches, and other RC artifacts > after > > check. > > > > 4) Mark this release as RC0 to make sure it will be clear to everybody > that > > it's a check. > > > > > > вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 13:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > > > If it is an Ignite release, then it has to pass through the vote. If > not, > > > then you can do the test without publishing or uploading the release. > > > > > > D. > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:18 PM Petr Ivanov > wrote: > > > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > > > In case of TC questions — ask me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:16, Nikolay Izhikov > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Petr. > > > > > > > > > > I want to make ignite-2.7 branch today. > > > > > And execute release procedure based on this branch. > > > > > > > > > > However, ignite-2.7 branch will be copy of master until code freeze > > > > > > date. > > > > > > > > > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:13 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет: > > > > > > Will it be just a test or there is already ignite-2.7 branch? > > > > > > > > > > > > Fabric removal related TC modifications are not ready yet, and > code is > > > > > > > > not in master. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:07, Nikolay Izhikov > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to start and release procedures and make an RC1 build. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has a 2 intention: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. I want to walk through all release steps to make sure they > all > > > > > > > > works for me. > > > > > > > So I will be fully ready on release date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. We have updated some dependencies in 2.7 and we need to > make sure > > > > > > > > binary build is still workable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Пт, 14/09/2018 в 18:52 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет: > > > > > > > > We already have all the mechanics in place to work with > properties - > > > > > > > > we use > > > > > > > > ignite.build and ignite.revision from ignite.properties > which are > > > > > > > > adjusted > > > > > > > > during the build in the binary package. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should I create the ticket if there are no objections? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 14 сент. 2018 г. в 13:22, Ilya Kasnacheev < > > > > > > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So now there's an issue that this script makes source > change after > > > > > > > > every > > > > > > > > > build, show up in git status. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What we could do to it: > > > > > > > > > - Commit the changes after the build, once. In hopes that > it won't > > > > > > > > change > > > > > > > > > very often. With benefit that we could do that right now, > before > > > > > > the > > > > code > > > > > > > > > freeze. > > > > > > > > > - Move these values to a properties file from both pom.xml > and > > > > > > > > > IgniteProvider.java. Any problems with this approach? > We'll just > > > > > > > > read them > > > > > > > > > from classpath properties file. > > > > > > > > > - Update the links in the file once and remove them from > build > > > > > > > > process. Why > > > > > > > > > were they added to build process in the first place - to > make them > > > > > > > > > configurable during build? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 11 сент. 2018 г. в 5:53, Roman Shtykh < > rsht...@yahoo.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ilya, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The "latest" version is the default, and resolved by > > > > > > > > > > https://ignite.apache.org/latest which is used by our > web site > > > > > > > > when a > > > > > > > > > > user download the latest Ignite version. And I think > this is the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > authority > > > > > > > > > > to judge of the latest official release (pom.xml you > suggest can > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > SNAPSHOTs etc.). > > > > > > > > > > Also, as I explained during our review sessions, > > > > > > ignite-mesos-2.6.0 > > > > is a > > > > > > > > > > driver and doesn't mean you need to have Ignite 2.6.0. > User can > > > > > > run > > > >
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Hello, folks. Thanks for the comments. I will follow them. В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:31 +0300, Anton Vinogradov пишет: > Nikolay, > > 1) *Do not* create ignite-2.7 branch until we're not started preparation to > real 2.7. > Use some temporary branch for this check instead, eg. > ignite-2.7-release-test > > 2) Please make sure you'll not cause real release actions (maven release > and so on). > Perform only vote_* steps. > > 3) Make sure you'll remove all tags, branches, and other RC artifacts after > check. > > 4) Mark this release as RC0 to make sure it will be clear to everybody that > it's a check. > > > вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 13:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > If it is an Ignite release, then it has to pass through the vote. If not, > > then you can do the test without publishing or uploading the release. > > > > D. > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:18 PM Petr Ivanov wrote: > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > In case of TC questions — ask me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:16, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello, Petr. > > > > > > > > I want to make ignite-2.7 branch today. > > > > And execute release procedure based on this branch. > > > > > > > > However, ignite-2.7 branch will be copy of master until code freeze > > > > date. > > > > > > > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:13 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет: > > > > > Will it be just a test or there is already ignite-2.7 branch? > > > > > > > > > > Fabric removal related TC modifications are not ready yet, and code is > > > > > > not in master. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:07, Nikolay Izhikov > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to start and release procedures and make an RC1 build. > > > > > > > > > > > > It has a 2 intention: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. I want to walk through all release steps to make sure they all > > > > > > works for me. > > > > > > So I will be fully ready on release date. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. We have updated some dependencies in 2.7 and we need to make sure > > > > > > binary build is still workable. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Пт, 14/09/2018 в 18:52 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет: > > > > > > > We already have all the mechanics in place to work with > > > > > > > properties - > > > > > > we use > > > > > > > ignite.build and ignite.revision from ignite.properties which are > > > > > > adjusted > > > > > > > during the build in the binary package. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should I create the ticket if there are no objections? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 14 сент. 2018 г. в 13:22, Ilya Kasnacheev < > > > > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So now there's an issue that this script makes source change > > > > > > > > after > > > > > > every > > > > > > > > build, show up in git status. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What we could do to it: > > > > > > > > - Commit the changes after the build, once. In hopes that it > > > > > > > > won't > > > > > > change > > > > > > > > very often. With benefit that we could do that right now, before > > > > the > > > code > > > > > > > > freeze. > > > > > > > > - Move these values to a properties file from both pom.xml and > > > > > > > > IgniteProvider.java. Any problems with this approach? We'll just > > > > > > read them > > > > > > > > from classpath properties file. > > > > > > > > - Update the links in the file once and remove them from build > > > > > > process. Why > > > > > > > > were they added to build process in the first place - to make > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > configurable during build? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 11 сент. 2018 г. в 5:53, Roman Shtykh : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ilya, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The "latest" version is the default, and resolved by > > > > > > > > > https://ignite.apache.org/latest which is used by our web site > > > > > > when a > > > > > > > > > user download the latest Ignite version. And I think this is > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > authority > > > > > > > > > to judge of the latest official release (pom.xml you suggest > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > SNAPSHOTs etc.). > > > > > > > > > Also, as I explained during our review sessions, > > > > ignite-mesos-2.6.0 > > > is a > > > > > > > > > driver and doesn't mean you need to have Ignite 2.6.0. User > > > > > > > > > can > > > > run > > > any > > > > > > > > > version of Ignite he/she specifies. By default, it's "latest" > > > > > > > > > but > > > > a > > > user > > > > > > > > > can specify any version needed, even from a non-archive URL. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In short, what we have now > > > > > > > > > 1. mesos dr
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Nikolay, 1) *Do not* create ignite-2.7 branch until we're not started preparation to real 2.7. Use some temporary branch for this check instead, eg. ignite-2.7-release-test 2) Please make sure you'll not cause real release actions (maven release and so on). Perform only vote_* steps. 3) Make sure you'll remove all tags, branches, and other RC artifacts after check. 4) Mark this release as RC0 to make sure it will be clear to everybody that it's a check. вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 13:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan : > If it is an Ignite release, then it has to pass through the vote. If not, > then you can do the test without publishing or uploading the release. > > D. > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:18 PM Petr Ivanov wrote: > > > Ok. > > > > In case of TC questions — ask me. > > > > > > > > > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:16, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > > > > > Hello, Petr. > > > > > > I want to make ignite-2.7 branch today. > > > And execute release procedure based on this branch. > > > > > > However, ignite-2.7 branch will be copy of master until code freeze > date. > > > > > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:13 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет: > > >> Will it be just a test or there is already ignite-2.7 branch? > > >> > > >> Fabric removal related TC modifications are not ready yet, and code is > > not in master. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:07, Nikolay Izhikov > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hello, Igniters. > > >>> > > >>> I want to start and release procedures and make an RC1 build. > > >>> > > >>> It has a 2 intention: > > >>> > > >>> 1. I want to walk through all release steps to make sure they all > > works for me. > > >>> So I will be fully ready on release date. > > >>> > > >>> 2. We have updated some dependencies in 2.7 and we need to make sure > > binary build is still workable. > > >>> > > >>> Any objections? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> В Пт, 14/09/2018 в 18:52 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет: > > We already have all the mechanics in place to work with properties - > > we use > > ignite.build and ignite.revision from ignite.properties which are > > adjusted > > during the build in the binary package. > > > > Should I create the ticket if there are no objections? > > > > пт, 14 сент. 2018 г. в 13:22, Ilya Kasnacheev < > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>: > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > So now there's an issue that this script makes source change after > > every > > > build, show up in git status. > > > > > > What we could do to it: > > > - Commit the changes after the build, once. In hopes that it won't > > change > > > very often. With benefit that we could do that right now, before > the > > code > > > freeze. > > > - Move these values to a properties file from both pom.xml and > > > IgniteProvider.java. Any problems with this approach? We'll just > > read them > > > from classpath properties file. > > > - Update the links in the file once and remove them from build > > process. Why > > > were they added to build process in the first place - to make them > > > configurable during build? > > > > > > Regards, > > > -- > > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > > > > вт, 11 сент. 2018 г. в 5:53, Roman Shtykh : > > > > > >> Ilya, > > >> > > >> The "latest" version is the default, and resolved by > > >> https://ignite.apache.org/latest which is used by our web site > > when a > > >> user download the latest Ignite version. And I think this is the > > > > > > authority > > >> to judge of the latest official release (pom.xml you suggest can > > have > > >> SNAPSHOTs etc.). > > >> Also, as I explained during our review sessions, > ignite-mesos-2.6.0 > > is a > > >> driver and doesn't mean you need to have Ignite 2.6.0. User can > run > > any > > >> version of Ignite he/she specifies. By default, it's "latest" but > a > > user > > >> can specify any version needed, even from a non-archive URL. > > >> > > >> In short, what we have now > > >> 1. mesos driver (ignite-mesos-x.x.x) will use "latest" version by > > default > > >> -> it will try to resolve the latest officially releases version > of > > > > > > Apache > > >> Ignite, find the closest mirror and download Ignite in a minute. > If > > the > > >> version resolution fails, we fall back to the slow apache archive > > (as you > > >> suggest; in my opinion we better fail-fast instead of waiting for > > hours > > > > > > to > > >> download, so the user can choose another download option (3)) > > >> 2. If the user specifies the version explicitly, it goes to the > slow > > >> apache archive. > > >> 3. The user can put ignite zip file on his/her http server and > > provide > > > > > > the > > >> URL as a parameter to the driver, if options 1 and 2 don't work. > > >> > > >> As you see, there are 3 options. And I just fix the 1st one
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
If it is an Ignite release, then it has to pass through the vote. If not, then you can do the test without publishing or uploading the release. D. On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:18 PM Petr Ivanov wrote: > Ok. > > In case of TC questions — ask me. > > > > > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:16, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > > > Hello, Petr. > > > > I want to make ignite-2.7 branch today. > > And execute release procedure based on this branch. > > > > However, ignite-2.7 branch will be copy of master until code freeze date. > > > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:13 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет: > >> Will it be just a test or there is already ignite-2.7 branch? > >> > >> Fabric removal related TC modifications are not ready yet, and code is > not in master. > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:07, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > >>> > >>> Hello, Igniters. > >>> > >>> I want to start and release procedures and make an RC1 build. > >>> > >>> It has a 2 intention: > >>> > >>> 1. I want to walk through all release steps to make sure they all > works for me. > >>> So I will be fully ready on release date. > >>> > >>> 2. We have updated some dependencies in 2.7 and we need to make sure > binary build is still workable. > >>> > >>> Any objections? > >>> > >>> > >>> В Пт, 14/09/2018 в 18:52 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет: > We already have all the mechanics in place to work with properties - > we use > ignite.build and ignite.revision from ignite.properties which are > adjusted > during the build in the binary package. > > Should I create the ticket if there are no objections? > > пт, 14 сент. 2018 г. в 13:22, Ilya Kasnacheev < > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>: > > > Hello! > > > > So now there's an issue that this script makes source change after > every > > build, show up in git status. > > > > What we could do to it: > > - Commit the changes after the build, once. In hopes that it won't > change > > very often. With benefit that we could do that right now, before the > code > > freeze. > > - Move these values to a properties file from both pom.xml and > > IgniteProvider.java. Any problems with this approach? We'll just > read them > > from classpath properties file. > > - Update the links in the file once and remove them from build > process. Why > > were they added to build process in the first place - to make them > > configurable during build? > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > вт, 11 сент. 2018 г. в 5:53, Roman Shtykh : > > > >> Ilya, > >> > >> The "latest" version is the default, and resolved by > >> https://ignite.apache.org/latest which is used by our web site > when a > >> user download the latest Ignite version. And I think this is the > > > > authority > >> to judge of the latest official release (pom.xml you suggest can > have > >> SNAPSHOTs etc.). > >> Also, as I explained during our review sessions, ignite-mesos-2.6.0 > is a > >> driver and doesn't mean you need to have Ignite 2.6.0. User can run > any > >> version of Ignite he/she specifies. By default, it's "latest" but a > user > >> can specify any version needed, even from a non-archive URL. > >> > >> In short, what we have now > >> 1. mesos driver (ignite-mesos-x.x.x) will use "latest" version by > default > >> -> it will try to resolve the latest officially releases version of > > > > Apache > >> Ignite, find the closest mirror and download Ignite in a minute. If > the > >> version resolution fails, we fall back to the slow apache archive > (as you > >> suggest; in my opinion we better fail-fast instead of waiting for > hours > > > > to > >> download, so the user can choose another download option (3)) > >> 2. If the user specifies the version explicitly, it goes to the slow > >> apache archive. > >> 3. The user can put ignite zip file on his/her http server and > provide > > > > the > >> URL as a parameter to the driver, if options 1 and 2 don't work. > >> > >> As you see, there are 3 options. And I just fix the 1st one with > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9388 and don't change > the > >> original logic (which I find reasonable) documented on our site -- I > > > > don't > >> see how it blocks anything. > >> > >> Roman Shtykh > >> > >> > >> On Monday, September 10, 2018, 6:16:15 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev < > >> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Hello! > >> > >> There's still two issues with the submission. > >> > >> The first one is that we're downloading "latest" version from > preferred > >> mirror but a specified version, such as "2.6", we're also going to > > > > download > >> from "slow" archive.apache.org/dist. > >> That's a great limitation for this change, since mos
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Ok. In case of TC questions — ask me. > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:16, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > Hello, Petr. > > I want to make ignite-2.7 branch today. > And execute release procedure based on this branch. > > However, ignite-2.7 branch will be copy of master until code freeze date. > > В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:13 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет: >> Will it be just a test or there is already ignite-2.7 branch? >> >> Fabric removal related TC modifications are not ready yet, and code is not >> in master. >> >> >> >>> On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:07, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: >>> >>> Hello, Igniters. >>> >>> I want to start and release procedures and make an RC1 build. >>> >>> It has a 2 intention: >>> >>> 1. I want to walk through all release steps to make sure they all works for >>> me. >>> So I will be fully ready on release date. >>> >>> 2. We have updated some dependencies in 2.7 and we need to make sure binary >>> build is still workable. >>> >>> Any objections? >>> >>> >>> В Пт, 14/09/2018 в 18:52 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет: We already have all the mechanics in place to work with properties - we use ignite.build and ignite.revision from ignite.properties which are adjusted during the build in the binary package. Should I create the ticket if there are no objections? пт, 14 сент. 2018 г. в 13:22, Ilya Kasnacheev : > Hello! > > So now there's an issue that this script makes source change after every > build, show up in git status. > > What we could do to it: > - Commit the changes after the build, once. In hopes that it won't change > very often. With benefit that we could do that right now, before the code > freeze. > - Move these values to a properties file from both pom.xml and > IgniteProvider.java. Any problems with this approach? We'll just read them > from classpath properties file. > - Update the links in the file once and remove them from build process. > Why > were they added to build process in the first place - to make them > configurable during build? > > Regards, > -- > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > вт, 11 сент. 2018 г. в 5:53, Roman Shtykh : > >> Ilya, >> >> The "latest" version is the default, and resolved by >> https://ignite.apache.org/latest which is used by our web site when a >> user download the latest Ignite version. And I think this is the > > authority >> to judge of the latest official release (pom.xml you suggest can have >> SNAPSHOTs etc.). >> Also, as I explained during our review sessions, ignite-mesos-2.6.0 is a >> driver and doesn't mean you need to have Ignite 2.6.0. User can run any >> version of Ignite he/she specifies. By default, it's "latest" but a user >> can specify any version needed, even from a non-archive URL. >> >> In short, what we have now >> 1. mesos driver (ignite-mesos-x.x.x) will use "latest" version by default >> -> it will try to resolve the latest officially releases version of > > Apache >> Ignite, find the closest mirror and download Ignite in a minute. If the >> version resolution fails, we fall back to the slow apache archive (as you >> suggest; in my opinion we better fail-fast instead of waiting for hours > > to >> download, so the user can choose another download option (3)) >> 2. If the user specifies the version explicitly, it goes to the slow >> apache archive. >> 3. The user can put ignite zip file on his/her http server and provide > > the >> URL as a parameter to the driver, if options 1 and 2 don't work. >> >> As you see, there are 3 options. And I just fix the 1st one with >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9388 and don't change the >> original logic (which I find reasonable) documented on our site -- I > > don't >> see how it blocks anything. >> >> Roman Shtykh >> >> >> On Monday, September 10, 2018, 6:16:15 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev < >> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Hello! >> >> There's still two issues with the submission. >> >> The first one is that we're downloading "latest" version from preferred >> mirror but a specified version, such as "2.6", we're also going to > > download >> from "slow" archive.apache.org/dist. >> That's a great limitation for this change, since most real deployments of >> Apache Ignite will have their Ignite version pegged to a specific > > release. >> But in this case there's no win in download speed. >> *In my opinion it is a blocker.* >> >> The second one is that we can't download anything when we failed to >> resolve "latest". My idea is that we should try and download last known >> version in this case, which can be pushed to source from pom.xml, as we >>
