Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Anton Vinogradov]

Peter,
I checked PR
Tests [1] seems to be ok
Comparision [2] with 2.6 seems to be ok
Sample result [3] - ok

Please check the rest.

[1]
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8_IgniteTests24Java8=ignite-7251
[2]
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/repository/download/ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_NofabricPrepareVote2CompareWithPreviousRelease/1627255:id/results/result.log
[3]
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=1615082=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_NofabricPrepareVote1JavaNetCCompleteAssembly=artifacts#!-1ezndiu3o89to,-lja97u2cm2u1

пн, 6 авг. 2018 г. в 12:41, Anton Vinogradov :

> Assigned issue to myself.
> Going to start implementation this week.
>
> сб, 4 авг. 2018 г. в 22:20, Petr Ivanov :
>
>> Thats all for Anton only, my role not worth mentioning.
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 4 Aug 2018, at 08:12, Denis Magda  wrote:
>> >
>> > Anton, Peter, thanks a lot! We all owe you a jar of beer and chocolate
>> (?)
>> > ;) Send me an invoice and I'll pay for it :)
>> >
>> > --
>> > Denis
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:32 AM Petr Ivanov  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yeap. When PR will be ready, I’ll start updating build configurations.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On 3 Aug 2018, at 17:28, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I can perform proper refactoring by myself.
>> >>>
>> >>> Peter, could you assist me with TC in that case?
>> >>>
>> >>> пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 17:17, Dmitriy Setrakyan > >:
>> >>>
>>  Agree with Denis. Let's do the simple refactoring first, and then
>> more
>>  complicated one in phase 2.
>> 
>>  On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 6:47 AM, Denis Magda 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >>
>> >> Thus, my suggestion is:
>> >> — find and update all hardcoded “fabric” usage on TC, so that they
>>  work
>> >> both with or without fabric in name of binaries
>> >> — use current implementation — review and merge to master
>> >> — plan full suffix refactoring (as Anton suggests) on the next
>> > iterations
>> >> with no rush
>> >
>> >
>> > I like this plan which allows us to do the things. I see the current
>> > implementation as one of the steps of the overall refactoring
>> proposed
>> >> by
>> > Anton. It sounds normal if we split refactoring into pieces.
>> >
>> > Anton, do you have time to help with the rest of refactoring tasks
>> >> before
>> > AI 2.7? It's great if we close the whole tasks by that time.
>> Otherwise,
>> > let's split it and release the current implementation first.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Denis
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:18 AM Petr Ivanov 
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dmitriy,
>> >>
>> >> I cannot forecast estimates for this task as it dependents on many
>> > factors:
>> >> — I will be able to start researching the Anton’s implementation
>> >> suggestion not earlier than the beginning of September
>> >> — I am not acquainted with assembly configuration well, it may take
>>  some
>> >> considerable time to understand how correctly get rid of “fabric”
>> not
>> >> touching everything else
>> >> — the process of review and merge can also drag on indefinitely
>> (based
>> > on
>> >> the previous attempt to introduce this changes)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Vladimir,
>> >>
>> >> If community will approve this hack, I’ll implement it.
>> >> Yet it won’t resolve the problem of building from sources not on
>> TC —
>>  the
>> >> fabric will stay in names of binaries and folders inside.
>> >> And it will add problems when the correct implementation will be
>> >> introduced.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thus, my suggestion is:
>> >> — find and update all hardcoded “fabric” usage on TC, so that they
>>  work
>> >> both with or without fabric in name of binaries
>> >> — use current implementation — review and merge to master
>> >> — plan full suffix refactoring (as Anton suggests) on the next
>> > iterations
>> >> with no rush
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On 3 Aug 2018, at 09:50, Vladimir Ozerov 
>>  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Folks,
>> >>>
>> >>> Can you please explain the problem with TC and artifacts? Can we
>> just
>> >>> rename final artifact at the end of a build phase just before
>>  signing,
>> >> and
>> >>> leave the rest TC infrastructure as is?
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:28 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> > dsetrak...@apache.org
>> >>>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>>  Anton, Petr,
>> 
>>  Thanks for your readiness to assist. Can this be done for 2.7
>>  release?
>> 
>>  D.
>> 
>>  On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Anton Vinogradov 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> > What I see is that we spent almost a year discussing how to do
>>  this.
>> > I'm pretty sure we had enough time to do everything properly.
>> >
>> > So, 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Anton Vinogradov]

Assigned issue to myself.
Going to start implementation this week.

сб, 4 авг. 2018 г. в 22:20, Petr Ivanov :

> Thats all for Anton only, my role not worth mentioning.
>
>
>
> > On 4 Aug 2018, at 08:12, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >
> > Anton, Peter, thanks a lot! We all owe you a jar of beer and chocolate
> (?)
> > ;) Send me an invoice and I'll pay for it :)
> >
> > --
> > Denis
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:32 AM Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> >
> >> Yeap. When PR will be ready, I’ll start updating build configurations.
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 3 Aug 2018, at 17:28, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I can perform proper refactoring by myself.
> >>>
> >>> Peter, could you assist me with TC in that case?
> >>>
> >>> пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 17:17, Dmitriy Setrakyan :
> >>>
>  Agree with Denis. Let's do the simple refactoring first, and then more
>  complicated one in phase 2.
> 
>  On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 6:47 AM, Denis Magda 
> wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Thus, my suggestion is:
> >> — find and update all hardcoded “fabric” usage on TC, so that they
>  work
> >> both with or without fabric in name of binaries
> >> — use current implementation — review and merge to master
> >> — plan full suffix refactoring (as Anton suggests) on the next
> > iterations
> >> with no rush
> >
> >
> > I like this plan which allows us to do the things. I see the current
> > implementation as one of the steps of the overall refactoring
> proposed
> >> by
> > Anton. It sounds normal if we split refactoring into pieces.
> >
> > Anton, do you have time to help with the rest of refactoring tasks
> >> before
> > AI 2.7? It's great if we close the whole tasks by that time.
> Otherwise,
> > let's split it and release the current implementation first.
> >
> > --
> > Denis
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:18 AM Petr Ivanov 
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> Dmitriy,
> >>
> >> I cannot forecast estimates for this task as it dependents on many
> > factors:
> >> — I will be able to start researching the Anton’s implementation
> >> suggestion not earlier than the beginning of September
> >> — I am not acquainted with assembly configuration well, it may take
>  some
> >> considerable time to understand how correctly get rid of “fabric”
> not
> >> touching everything else
> >> — the process of review and merge can also drag on indefinitely
> (based
> > on
> >> the previous attempt to introduce this changes)
> >>
> >>
> >> Vladimir,
> >>
> >> If community will approve this hack, I’ll implement it.
> >> Yet it won’t resolve the problem of building from sources not on TC
> —
>  the
> >> fabric will stay in names of binaries and folders inside.
> >> And it will add problems when the correct implementation will be
> >> introduced.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thus, my suggestion is:
> >> — find and update all hardcoded “fabric” usage on TC, so that they
>  work
> >> both with or without fabric in name of binaries
> >> — use current implementation — review and merge to master
> >> — plan full suffix refactoring (as Anton suggests) on the next
> > iterations
> >> with no rush
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 3 Aug 2018, at 09:50, Vladimir Ozerov 
>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Folks,
> >>>
> >>> Can you please explain the problem with TC and artifacts? Can we
> just
> >>> rename final artifact at the end of a build phase just before
>  signing,
> >> and
> >>> leave the rest TC infrastructure as is?
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:28 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > dsetrak...@apache.org
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Anton, Petr,
> 
>  Thanks for your readiness to assist. Can this be done for 2.7
>  release?
> 
>  D.
> 
>  On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Anton Vinogradov 
> > wrote:
> 
> > What I see is that we spent almost a year discussing how to do
>  this.
> > I'm pretty sure we had enough time to do everything properly.
> >
> > So, proposal is to stop this discussion and start refactoring.
> >
> > I do not see any pitfalls and ready to assist if necessary.
> >
> > чт, 2 авг. 2018 г. в 5:14, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>  dsetrak...@apache.org
> >> :
> >
> >> I vote to remove the fabric from the build in the easiest way
> >> possible.
> > Can
> >> other Igniters comment?
> >>
> >> D.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Petr Ivanov <
> mr.wei...@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> My concern here is exactly about internal build processes —
> > removing
> >>> fabric from the name of binary archive (with any way) will
> break
> > lots
> 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Petr Ivanov]

Thats all for Anton only, my role not worth mentioning.



> On 4 Aug 2018, at 08:12, Denis Magda  wrote:
> 
> Anton, Peter, thanks a lot! We all owe you a jar of beer and chocolate (?)
> ;) Send me an invoice and I'll pay for it :)
> 
> --
> Denis
> 
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:32 AM Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> 
>> Yeap. When PR will be ready, I’ll start updating build configurations.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 3 Aug 2018, at 17:28, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I can perform proper refactoring by myself.
>>> 
>>> Peter, could you assist me with TC in that case?
>>> 
>>> пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 17:17, Dmitriy Setrakyan :
>>> 
 Agree with Denis. Let's do the simple refactoring first, and then more
 complicated one in phase 2.
 
 On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 6:47 AM, Denis Magda  wrote:
 
>> 
>> Thus, my suggestion is:
>> — find and update all hardcoded “fabric” usage on TC, so that they
 work
>> both with or without fabric in name of binaries
>> — use current implementation — review and merge to master
>> — plan full suffix refactoring (as Anton suggests) on the next
> iterations
>> with no rush
> 
> 
> I like this plan which allows us to do the things. I see the current
> implementation as one of the steps of the overall refactoring proposed
>> by
> Anton. It sounds normal if we split refactoring into pieces.
> 
> Anton, do you have time to help with the rest of refactoring tasks
>> before
> AI 2.7? It's great if we close the whole tasks by that time. Otherwise,
> let's split it and release the current implementation first.
> 
> --
> Denis
> 
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:18 AM Petr Ivanov 
>> wrote:
> 
>> Dmitriy,
>> 
>> I cannot forecast estimates for this task as it dependents on many
> factors:
>> — I will be able to start researching the Anton’s implementation
>> suggestion not earlier than the beginning of September
>> — I am not acquainted with assembly configuration well, it may take
 some
>> considerable time to understand how correctly get rid of “fabric” not
>> touching everything else
>> — the process of review and merge can also drag on indefinitely (based
> on
>> the previous attempt to introduce this changes)
>> 
>> 
>> Vladimir,
>> 
>> If community will approve this hack, I’ll implement it.
>> Yet it won’t resolve the problem of building from sources not on TC —
 the
>> fabric will stay in names of binaries and folders inside.
>> And it will add problems when the correct implementation will be
>> introduced.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thus, my suggestion is:
>> — find and update all hardcoded “fabric” usage on TC, so that they
 work
>> both with or without fabric in name of binaries
>> — use current implementation — review and merge to master
>> — plan full suffix refactoring (as Anton suggests) on the next
> iterations
>> with no rush
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 3 Aug 2018, at 09:50, Vladimir Ozerov 
 wrote:
>>> 
>>> Folks,
>>> 
>>> Can you please explain the problem with TC and artifacts? Can we just
>>> rename final artifact at the end of a build phase just before
 signing,
>> and
>>> leave the rest TC infrastructure as is?
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:28 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org
>>> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Anton, Petr,
 
 Thanks for your readiness to assist. Can this be done for 2.7
 release?
 
 D.
 
 On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Anton Vinogradov 
> wrote:
 
> What I see is that we spent almost a year discussing how to do
 this.
> I'm pretty sure we had enough time to do everything properly.
> 
> So, proposal is to stop this discussion and start refactoring.
> 
> I do not see any pitfalls and ready to assist if necessary.
> 
> чт, 2 авг. 2018 г. в 5:14, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
 dsetrak...@apache.org
>> :
> 
>> I vote to remove the fabric from the build in the easiest way
>> possible.
> Can
>> other Igniters comment?
>> 
>> D.
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Petr Ivanov  
> wrote:
>> 
>>> My concern here is exactly about internal build processes —
> removing
>>> fabric from the name of binary archive (with any way) will break
> lots
> of
>>> them.
>>> There will be no sacrifices, just lots of work for fixing build
> processes
>>> (where we won’t be able to introduce changes proactively).
>>> 
>>> Therefore only fabric removal implementation (quick with some
> legacy
> left
>>> or full refactoring) is on the agenda.
>>> And this matter should be 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Denis Magda]

Anton, Peter, thanks a lot! We all owe you a jar of beer and chocolate (?)
;) Send me an invoice and I'll pay for it :)

--
Denis

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:32 AM Petr Ivanov  wrote:

> Yeap. When PR will be ready, I’ll start updating build configurations.
>
>
> > On 3 Aug 2018, at 17:28, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> >
> > I can perform proper refactoring by myself.
> >
> > Peter, could you assist me with TC in that case?
> >
> > пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 17:17, Dmitriy Setrakyan :
> >
> >> Agree with Denis. Let's do the simple refactoring first, and then more
> >> complicated one in phase 2.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 6:47 AM, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >>
> 
>  Thus, my suggestion is:
>  — find and update all hardcoded “fabric” usage on TC, so that they
> >> work
>  both with or without fabric in name of binaries
>  — use current implementation — review and merge to master
>  — plan full suffix refactoring (as Anton suggests) on the next
> >>> iterations
>  with no rush
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I like this plan which allows us to do the things. I see the current
> >>> implementation as one of the steps of the overall refactoring proposed
> by
> >>> Anton. It sounds normal if we split refactoring into pieces.
> >>>
> >>> Anton, do you have time to help with the rest of refactoring tasks
> before
> >>> AI 2.7? It's great if we close the whole tasks by that time. Otherwise,
> >>> let's split it and release the current implementation first.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Denis
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:18 AM Petr Ivanov 
> wrote:
> >>>
>  Dmitriy,
> 
>  I cannot forecast estimates for this task as it dependents on many
> >>> factors:
>  — I will be able to start researching the Anton’s implementation
>  suggestion not earlier than the beginning of September
>  — I am not acquainted with assembly configuration well, it may take
> >> some
>  considerable time to understand how correctly get rid of “fabric” not
>  touching everything else
>  — the process of review and merge can also drag on indefinitely (based
> >>> on
>  the previous attempt to introduce this changes)
> 
> 
>  Vladimir,
> 
>  If community will approve this hack, I’ll implement it.
>  Yet it won’t resolve the problem of building from sources not on TC —
> >> the
>  fabric will stay in names of binaries and folders inside.
>  And it will add problems when the correct implementation will be
>  introduced.
> 
> 
> 
>  Thus, my suggestion is:
>  — find and update all hardcoded “fabric” usage on TC, so that they
> >> work
>  both with or without fabric in name of binaries
>  — use current implementation — review and merge to master
>  — plan full suffix refactoring (as Anton suggests) on the next
> >>> iterations
>  with no rush
> 
> 
> 
> > On 3 Aug 2018, at 09:50, Vladimir Ozerov 
> >> wrote:
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > Can you please explain the problem with TC and artifacts? Can we just
> > rename final artifact at the end of a build phase just before
> >> signing,
>  and
> > leave the rest TC infrastructure as is?
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:28 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >>> dsetrak...@apache.org
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Anton, Petr,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your readiness to assist. Can this be done for 2.7
> >> release?
> >>
> >> D.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Anton Vinogradov 
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> What I see is that we spent almost a year discussing how to do
> >> this.
> >>> I'm pretty sure we had enough time to do everything properly.
> >>>
> >>> So, proposal is to stop this discussion and start refactoring.
> >>>
> >>> I do not see any pitfalls and ready to assist if necessary.
> >>>
> >>> чт, 2 авг. 2018 г. в 5:14, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >> dsetrak...@apache.org
>  :
> >>>
>  I vote to remove the fabric from the build in the easiest way
>  possible.
> >>> Can
>  other Igniters comment?
> 
>  D.
> 
>  On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Petr Ivanov  >>>
> >>> wrote:
> 
> > My concern here is exactly about internal build processes —
> >>> removing
> > fabric from the name of binary archive (with any way) will break
> >>> lots
> >>> of
> > them.
> > There will be no sacrifices, just lots of work for fixing build
> >>> processes
> > (where we won’t be able to introduce changes proactively).
> >
> > Therefore only fabric removal implementation (quick with some
> >>> legacy
> >>> left
> > or full refactoring) is on the agenda.
> > And this matter should be jugged by the community: currently we
> >>> have
> >>> (if
> > our voices are equal) 1:1 with Anton about it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Petr Ivanov]

Yeap. When PR will be ready, I’ll start updating build configurations.


> On 3 Aug 2018, at 17:28, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> 
> I can perform proper refactoring by myself.
> 
> Peter, could you assist me with TC in that case?
> 
> пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 17:17, Dmitriy Setrakyan :
> 
>> Agree with Denis. Let's do the simple refactoring first, and then more
>> complicated one in phase 2.
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 6:47 AM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>> 
 
 Thus, my suggestion is:
 — find and update all hardcoded “fabric” usage on TC, so that they
>> work
 both with or without fabric in name of binaries
 — use current implementation — review and merge to master
 — plan full suffix refactoring (as Anton suggests) on the next
>>> iterations
 with no rush
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I like this plan which allows us to do the things. I see the current
>>> implementation as one of the steps of the overall refactoring proposed by
>>> Anton. It sounds normal if we split refactoring into pieces.
>>> 
>>> Anton, do you have time to help with the rest of refactoring tasks before
>>> AI 2.7? It's great if we close the whole tasks by that time. Otherwise,
>>> let's split it and release the current implementation first.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Denis
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:18 AM Petr Ivanov  wrote:
>>> 
 Dmitriy,
 
 I cannot forecast estimates for this task as it dependents on many
>>> factors:
 — I will be able to start researching the Anton’s implementation
 suggestion not earlier than the beginning of September
 — I am not acquainted with assembly configuration well, it may take
>> some
 considerable time to understand how correctly get rid of “fabric” not
 touching everything else
 — the process of review and merge can also drag on indefinitely (based
>>> on
 the previous attempt to introduce this changes)
 
 
 Vladimir,
 
 If community will approve this hack, I’ll implement it.
 Yet it won’t resolve the problem of building from sources not on TC —
>> the
 fabric will stay in names of binaries and folders inside.
 And it will add problems when the correct implementation will be
 introduced.
 
 
 
 Thus, my suggestion is:
 — find and update all hardcoded “fabric” usage on TC, so that they
>> work
 both with or without fabric in name of binaries
 — use current implementation — review and merge to master
 — plan full suffix refactoring (as Anton suggests) on the next
>>> iterations
 with no rush
 
 
 
> On 3 Aug 2018, at 09:50, Vladimir Ozerov 
>> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Can you please explain the problem with TC and artifacts? Can we just
> rename final artifact at the end of a build phase just before
>> signing,
 and
> leave the rest TC infrastructure as is?
> 
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:28 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>> dsetrak...@apache.org
> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Anton, Petr,
>> 
>> Thanks for your readiness to assist. Can this be done for 2.7
>> release?
>> 
>> D.
>> 
>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Anton Vinogradov 
>>> wrote:
>> 
>>> What I see is that we spent almost a year discussing how to do
>> this.
>>> I'm pretty sure we had enough time to do everything properly.
>>> 
>>> So, proposal is to stop this discussion and start refactoring.
>>> 
>>> I do not see any pitfalls and ready to assist if necessary.
>>> 
>>> чт, 2 авг. 2018 г. в 5:14, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> dsetrak...@apache.org
 :
>>> 
 I vote to remove the fabric from the build in the easiest way
 possible.
>>> Can
 other Igniters comment?
 
 D.
 
 On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Petr Ivanov >> 
>>> wrote:
 
> My concern here is exactly about internal build processes —
>>> removing
> fabric from the name of binary archive (with any way) will break
>>> lots
>>> of
> them.
> There will be no sacrifices, just lots of work for fixing build
>>> processes
> (where we won’t be able to introduce changes proactively).
> 
> Therefore only fabric removal implementation (quick with some
>>> legacy
>>> left
> or full refactoring) is on the agenda.
> And this matter should be jugged by the community: currently we
>>> have
>>> (if
> our voices are equal) 1:1 with Anton about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 22:28, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> dsetrak...@apache.org
 
> wrote:
>> 
>> Let's focus on what is important here. Our users do not care
>> about
>>> our
>> internal build process.If we could remove the word fabric from
>> the
>>> next
>> release without any significant sacrifices in the build process
>> or
 making
>> it less maintainable, I suggest 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Anton Vinogradov]

I can perform proper refactoring by myself.

Peter, could you assist me with TC in that case?

пт, 3 авг. 2018 г. в 17:17, Dmitriy Setrakyan :

> Agree with Denis. Let's do the simple refactoring first, and then more
> complicated one in phase 2.
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 6:47 AM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Thus, my suggestion is:
> > >  — find and update all hardcoded “fabric” usage on TC, so that they
> work
> > > both with or without fabric in name of binaries
> > >  — use current implementation — review and merge to master
> > >  — plan full suffix refactoring (as Anton suggests) on the next
> > iterations
> > > with no rush
> >
> >
> > I like this plan which allows us to do the things. I see the current
> > implementation as one of the steps of the overall refactoring proposed by
> > Anton. It sounds normal if we split refactoring into pieces.
> >
> > Anton, do you have time to help with the rest of refactoring tasks before
> > AI 2.7? It's great if we close the whole tasks by that time. Otherwise,
> > let's split it and release the current implementation first.
> >
> > --
> > Denis
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:18 AM Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> >
> > > Dmitriy,
> > >
> > > I cannot forecast estimates for this task as it dependents on many
> > factors:
> > >  — I will be able to start researching the Anton’s implementation
> > > suggestion not earlier than the beginning of September
> > >  — I am not acquainted with assembly configuration well, it may take
> some
> > > considerable time to understand how correctly get rid of “fabric” not
> > > touching everything else
> > >  — the process of review and merge can also drag on indefinitely (based
> > on
> > > the previous attempt to introduce this changes)
> > >
> > >
> > > Vladimir,
> > >
> > > If community will approve this hack, I’ll implement it.
> > > Yet it won’t resolve the problem of building from sources not on TC —
> the
> > > fabric will stay in names of binaries and folders inside.
> > > And it will add problems when the correct implementation will be
> > > introduced.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thus, my suggestion is:
> > >  — find and update all hardcoded “fabric” usage on TC, so that they
> work
> > > both with or without fabric in name of binaries
> > >  — use current implementation — review and merge to master
> > >  — plan full suffix refactoring (as Anton suggests) on the next
> > iterations
> > > with no rush
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 3 Aug 2018, at 09:50, Vladimir Ozerov 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > Can you please explain the problem with TC and artifacts? Can we just
> > > > rename final artifact at the end of a build phase just before
> signing,
> > > and
> > > > leave the rest TC infrastructure as is?
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:28 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > dsetrak...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Anton, Petr,
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks for your readiness to assist. Can this be done for 2.7
> release?
> > > >>
> > > >> D.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Anton Vinogradov 
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> What I see is that we spent almost a year discussing how to do
> this.
> > > >>> I'm pretty sure we had enough time to do everything properly.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So, proposal is to stop this discussion and start refactoring.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I do not see any pitfalls and ready to assist if necessary.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> чт, 2 авг. 2018 г. в 5:14, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org
> > >:
> > > >>>
> > >  I vote to remove the fabric from the build in the easiest way
> > > possible.
> > > >>> Can
> > >  other Igniters comment?
> > > 
> > >  D.
> > > 
> > >  On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Petr Ivanov  >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > My concern here is exactly about internal build processes —
> > removing
> > > > fabric from the name of binary archive (with any way) will break
> > lots
> > > >>> of
> > > > them.
> > > > There will be no sacrifices, just lots of work for fixing build
> > > >>> processes
> > > > (where we won’t be able to introduce changes proactively).
> > > >
> > > > Therefore only fabric removal implementation (quick with some
> > legacy
> > > >>> left
> > > > or full refactoring) is on the agenda.
> > > > And this matter should be jugged by the community: currently we
> > have
> > > >>> (if
> > > > our voices are equal) 1:1 with Anton about it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On 1 Aug 2018, at 22:28, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Let's focus on what is important here. Our users do not care
> about
> > > >>> our
> > > >> internal build process.If we could remove the word fabric from
> the
> > > >>> next
> > > >> release without any significant sacrifices in the build process
> or
> > >  making
> > > >> it less maintainable, I suggest we do it.
> > > 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

Agree with Denis. Let's do the simple refactoring first, and then more
complicated one in phase 2.

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 6:47 AM, Denis Magda  wrote:

> >
> > Thus, my suggestion is:
> >  — find and update all hardcoded “fabric” usage on TC, so that they work
> > both with or without fabric in name of binaries
> >  — use current implementation — review and merge to master
> >  — plan full suffix refactoring (as Anton suggests) on the next
> iterations
> > with no rush
>
>
> I like this plan which allows us to do the things. I see the current
> implementation as one of the steps of the overall refactoring proposed by
> Anton. It sounds normal if we split refactoring into pieces.
>
> Anton, do you have time to help with the rest of refactoring tasks before
> AI 2.7? It's great if we close the whole tasks by that time. Otherwise,
> let's split it and release the current implementation first.
>
> --
> Denis
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:18 AM Petr Ivanov  wrote:
>
> > Dmitriy,
> >
> > I cannot forecast estimates for this task as it dependents on many
> factors:
> >  — I will be able to start researching the Anton’s implementation
> > suggestion not earlier than the beginning of September
> >  — I am not acquainted with assembly configuration well, it may take some
> > considerable time to understand how correctly get rid of “fabric” not
> > touching everything else
> >  — the process of review and merge can also drag on indefinitely (based
> on
> > the previous attempt to introduce this changes)
> >
> >
> > Vladimir,
> >
> > If community will approve this hack, I’ll implement it.
> > Yet it won’t resolve the problem of building from sources not on TC — the
> > fabric will stay in names of binaries and folders inside.
> > And it will add problems when the correct implementation will be
> > introduced.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thus, my suggestion is:
> >  — find and update all hardcoded “fabric” usage on TC, so that they work
> > both with or without fabric in name of binaries
> >  — use current implementation — review and merge to master
> >  — plan full suffix refactoring (as Anton suggests) on the next
> iterations
> > with no rush
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 3 Aug 2018, at 09:50, Vladimir Ozerov  wrote:
> > >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > Can you please explain the problem with TC and artifacts? Can we just
> > > rename final artifact at the end of a build phase just before signing,
> > and
> > > leave the rest TC infrastructure as is?
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:28 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Anton, Petr,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for your readiness to assist. Can this be done for 2.7 release?
> > >>
> > >> D.
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Anton Vinogradov 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> What I see is that we spent almost a year discussing how to do this.
> > >>> I'm pretty sure we had enough time to do everything properly.
> > >>>
> > >>> So, proposal is to stop this discussion and start refactoring.
> > >>>
> > >>> I do not see any pitfalls and ready to assist if necessary.
> > >>>
> > >>> чт, 2 авг. 2018 г. в 5:14, Dmitriy Setrakyan  >:
> > >>>
> >  I vote to remove the fabric from the build in the easiest way
> > possible.
> > >>> Can
> >  other Igniters comment?
> > 
> >  D.
> > 
> >  On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Petr Ivanov 
> > >>> wrote:
> > 
> > > My concern here is exactly about internal build processes —
> removing
> > > fabric from the name of binary archive (with any way) will break
> lots
> > >>> of
> > > them.
> > > There will be no sacrifices, just lots of work for fixing build
> > >>> processes
> > > (where we won’t be able to introduce changes proactively).
> > >
> > > Therefore only fabric removal implementation (quick with some
> legacy
> > >>> left
> > > or full refactoring) is on the agenda.
> > > And this matter should be jugged by the community: currently we
> have
> > >>> (if
> > > our voices are equal) 1:1 with Anton about it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 1 Aug 2018, at 22:28, Dmitriy Setrakyan  >
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Let's focus on what is important here. Our users do not care about
> > >>> our
> > >> internal build process.If we could remove the word fabric from the
> > >>> next
> > >> release without any significant sacrifices in the build process or
> >  making
> > >> it less maintainable, I suggest we do it.
> > >>
> > >> D.
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Petr Ivanov  >
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Simple way with some hack and legacy maintenance: accept patch as
> > >> it
> >  is
> > >>> implemented now.
> > >>> Hard way: full assembly refactoring and hadoop rejection.
> > >>>
> > >>> Anyway, after this is merged to master — complete automation
> > >> systems
> > >>> revision (TeamCity for example) is required due to heavy hardcode
> > 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Denis Magda]

>
> Thus, my suggestion is:
>  — find and update all hardcoded “fabric” usage on TC, so that they work
> both with or without fabric in name of binaries
>  — use current implementation — review and merge to master
>  — plan full suffix refactoring (as Anton suggests) on the next iterations
> with no rush


I like this plan which allows us to do the things. I see the current
implementation as one of the steps of the overall refactoring proposed by
Anton. It sounds normal if we split refactoring into pieces.

Anton, do you have time to help with the rest of refactoring tasks before
AI 2.7? It's great if we close the whole tasks by that time. Otherwise,
let's split it and release the current implementation first.

--
Denis

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 1:18 AM Petr Ivanov  wrote:

> Dmitriy,
>
> I cannot forecast estimates for this task as it dependents on many factors:
>  — I will be able to start researching the Anton’s implementation
> suggestion not earlier than the beginning of September
>  — I am not acquainted with assembly configuration well, it may take some
> considerable time to understand how correctly get rid of “fabric” not
> touching everything else
>  — the process of review and merge can also drag on indefinitely (based on
> the previous attempt to introduce this changes)
>
>
> Vladimir,
>
> If community will approve this hack, I’ll implement it.
> Yet it won’t resolve the problem of building from sources not on TC — the
> fabric will stay in names of binaries and folders inside.
> And it will add problems when the correct implementation will be
> introduced.
>
>
>
> Thus, my suggestion is:
>  — find and update all hardcoded “fabric” usage on TC, so that they work
> both with or without fabric in name of binaries
>  — use current implementation — review and merge to master
>  — plan full suffix refactoring (as Anton suggests) on the next iterations
> with no rush
>
>
>
> > On 3 Aug 2018, at 09:50, Vladimir Ozerov  wrote:
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > Can you please explain the problem with TC and artifacts? Can we just
> > rename final artifact at the end of a build phase just before signing,
> and
> > leave the rest TC infrastructure as is?
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:28 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Anton, Petr,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your readiness to assist. Can this be done for 2.7 release?
> >>
> >> D.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> >>
> >>> What I see is that we spent almost a year discussing how to do this.
> >>> I'm pretty sure we had enough time to do everything properly.
> >>>
> >>> So, proposal is to stop this discussion and start refactoring.
> >>>
> >>> I do not see any pitfalls and ready to assist if necessary.
> >>>
> >>> чт, 2 авг. 2018 г. в 5:14, Dmitriy Setrakyan :
> >>>
>  I vote to remove the fabric from the build in the easiest way
> possible.
> >>> Can
>  other Igniters comment?
> 
>  D.
> 
>  On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Petr Ivanov 
> >>> wrote:
> 
> > My concern here is exactly about internal build processes — removing
> > fabric from the name of binary archive (with any way) will break lots
> >>> of
> > them.
> > There will be no sacrifices, just lots of work for fixing build
> >>> processes
> > (where we won’t be able to introduce changes proactively).
> >
> > Therefore only fabric removal implementation (quick with some legacy
> >>> left
> > or full refactoring) is on the agenda.
> > And this matter should be jugged by the community: currently we have
> >>> (if
> > our voices are equal) 1:1 with Anton about it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 1 Aug 2018, at 22:28, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Let's focus on what is important here. Our users do not care about
> >>> our
> >> internal build process.If we could remove the word fabric from the
> >>> next
> >> release without any significant sacrifices in the build process or
>  making
> >> it less maintainable, I suggest we do it.
> >>
> >> D.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Petr Ivanov 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Simple way with some hack and legacy maintenance: accept patch as
> >> it
>  is
> >>> implemented now.
> >>> Hard way: full assembly refactoring and hadoop rejection.
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, after this is merged to master — complete automation
> >> systems
> >>> revision (TeamCity for example) is required due to heavy hardcode
> >> of
> >>> “fabric” in such systems.
> >>>
> >>>
>  On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:55, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >> dsetrak...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> 
>  OK, so what is the plan? How do we get rid of the fabric name?
> 
>  D.
> 
>  On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Anton Vinogradov 
> > wrote:
> 
> > Since you proposing patch to the community, you are the very man
> >>> :)
> >
> 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Petr Ivanov]

Dmitriy, 

I cannot forecast estimates for this task as it dependents on many factors:
 — I will be able to start researching the Anton’s implementation suggestion 
not earlier than the beginning of September
 — I am not acquainted with assembly configuration well, it may take some 
considerable time to understand how correctly get rid of “fabric” not touching 
everything else
 — the process of review and merge can also drag on indefinitely (based on the 
previous attempt to introduce this changes)


Vladimir,

If community will approve this hack, I’ll implement it.
Yet it won’t resolve the problem of building from sources not on TC — the 
fabric will stay in names of binaries and folders inside.
And it will add problems when the correct implementation will be introduced.



Thus, my suggestion is:
 — find and update all hardcoded “fabric” usage on TC, so that they work both 
with or without fabric in name of binaries
 — use current implementation — review and merge to master
 — plan full suffix refactoring (as Anton suggests) on the next iterations with 
no rush



> On 3 Aug 2018, at 09:50, Vladimir Ozerov  wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Can you please explain the problem with TC and artifacts? Can we just
> rename final artifact at the end of a build phase just before signing, and
> leave the rest TC infrastructure as is?
> 
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:28 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> wrote:
> 
>> Anton, Petr,
>> 
>> Thanks for your readiness to assist. Can this be done for 2.7 release?
>> 
>> D.
>> 
>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
>> 
>>> What I see is that we spent almost a year discussing how to do this.
>>> I'm pretty sure we had enough time to do everything properly.
>>> 
>>> So, proposal is to stop this discussion and start refactoring.
>>> 
>>> I do not see any pitfalls and ready to assist if necessary.
>>> 
>>> чт, 2 авг. 2018 г. в 5:14, Dmitriy Setrakyan :
>>> 
 I vote to remove the fabric from the build in the easiest way possible.
>>> Can
 other Igniters comment?
 
 D.
 
 On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Petr Ivanov 
>>> wrote:
 
> My concern here is exactly about internal build processes — removing
> fabric from the name of binary archive (with any way) will break lots
>>> of
> them.
> There will be no sacrifices, just lots of work for fixing build
>>> processes
> (where we won’t be able to introduce changes proactively).
> 
> Therefore only fabric removal implementation (quick with some legacy
>>> left
> or full refactoring) is on the agenda.
> And this matter should be jugged by the community: currently we have
>>> (if
> our voices are equal) 1:1 with Anton about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 22:28, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> wrote:
>> 
>> Let's focus on what is important here. Our users do not care about
>>> our
>> internal build process.If we could remove the word fabric from the
>>> next
>> release without any significant sacrifices in the build process or
 making
>> it less maintainable, I suggest we do it.
>> 
>> D.
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Petr Ivanov 
> wrote:
>> 
>>> Simple way with some hack and legacy maintenance: accept patch as
>> it
 is
>>> implemented now.
>>> Hard way: full assembly refactoring and hadoop rejection.
>>> 
>>> Anyway, after this is merged to master — complete automation
>> systems
>>> revision (TeamCity for example) is required due to heavy hardcode
>> of
>>> “fabric” in such systems.
>>> 
>>> 
 On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:55, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> dsetrak...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
 
 OK, so what is the plan? How do we get rid of the fabric name?
 
 D.
 
 On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Anton Vinogradov 
> wrote:
 
> Since you proposing patch to the community, you are the very man
>>> :)
> 
> ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 12:16, Petr Ivanov :
> 
>> You are convincing the wrong person.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 12:05, Anton Vinogradov 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Peter,
>>> 
>>> We had a discussion about how to do this properly.
>>> Proposed solution cannot be merged, since it makes code harder
 than
> it
>> was.
>>> 
>>> The only case is to perform complete refactoring and get rid
>> of
 all
>>> postfixes and other weird stuff.
>>> 
>>> For example
>>> - 
>>> - 
>>> should be definetely removed from code.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 9:39, Peter Ivanov >> :
>>> 
 The task was ready long ago, but community failed to review
>> and
> merge
> it
 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 Not being a committer, my capabilities of introducing such
 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Folks,

Can you please explain the problem with TC and artifacts? Can we just
rename final artifact at the end of a build phase just before signing, and
leave the rest TC infrastructure as is?

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:28 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan 
wrote:

> Anton, Petr,
>
> Thanks for your readiness to assist. Can this be done for 2.7 release?
>
> D.
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
>
> > What I see is that we spent almost a year discussing how to do this.
> > I'm pretty sure we had enough time to do everything properly.
> >
> > So, proposal is to stop this discussion and start refactoring.
> >
> > I do not see any pitfalls and ready to assist if necessary.
> >
> > чт, 2 авг. 2018 г. в 5:14, Dmitriy Setrakyan :
> >
> > > I vote to remove the fabric from the build in the easiest way possible.
> > Can
> > > other Igniters comment?
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Petr Ivanov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > My concern here is exactly about internal build processes — removing
> > > > fabric from the name of binary archive (with any way) will break lots
> > of
> > > > them.
> > > > There will be no sacrifices, just lots of work for fixing build
> > processes
> > > > (where we won’t be able to introduce changes proactively).
> > > >
> > > > Therefore only fabric removal implementation (quick with some legacy
> > left
> > > > or full refactoring) is on the agenda.
> > > > And this matter should be jugged by the community: currently we have
> > (if
> > > > our voices are equal) 1:1 with Anton about it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On 1 Aug 2018, at 22:28, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's focus on what is important here. Our users do not care about
> > our
> > > > > internal build process.If we could remove the word fabric from the
> > next
> > > > > release without any significant sacrifices in the build process or
> > > making
> > > > > it less maintainable, I suggest we do it.
> > > > >
> > > > > D.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Petr Ivanov 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Simple way with some hack and legacy maintenance: accept patch as
> it
> > > is
> > > > >> implemented now.
> > > > >> Hard way: full assembly refactoring and hadoop rejection.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Anyway, after this is merged to master — complete automation
> systems
> > > > >> revision (TeamCity for example) is required due to heavy hardcode
> of
> > > > >> “fabric” in such systems.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:55, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> OK, so what is the plan? How do we get rid of the fabric name?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> D.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Anton Vinogradov 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > >  Since you proposing patch to the community, you are the very man
> > :)
> > > > 
> > > >  ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 12:16, Petr Ivanov :
> > > > 
> > > > > You are convincing the wrong person.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> On 1 Aug 2018, at 12:05, Anton Vinogradov 
> > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Peter,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> We had a discussion about how to do this properly.
> > > > >> Proposed solution cannot be merged, since it makes code harder
> > > than
> > > > it
> > > > > was.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The only case is to perform complete refactoring and get rid
> of
> > > all
> > > > >> postfixes and other weird stuff.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> For example
> > > > >> - 
> > > > >> - 
> > > > >> should be definetely removed from code.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 9:39, Peter Ivanov  >:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> The task was ready long ago, but community failed to review
> and
> > > > merge
> > > >  it
> > > > >>> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> > > > >>> Not being a committer, my capabilities of introducing such
> > > changes
> > > > >> are
> > > > >>> limited.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I will update code during this week and will pass for review
> > once
> > > >  again.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 00:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > >> dsetrak...@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > >  Yes, agree, fabric has to be removed. If it is done in 2.7,
> > > would
> > > > be
> > > > >>> great!
> > > > 
> > > >  On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Denis Magda <
> > dma...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Peter, folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > It's weird, but we have been failing to introduce this
> minor
> > > > change
> > > > >>> since
> > > > > December. Can we get it done for 2.7 that is being
> discussed
> > at
> > > > the
> > > >  moment?
> > > > > Are there any technical issues that block you 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

Anton, Petr,

Thanks for your readiness to assist. Can this be done for 2.7 release?

D.

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:

> What I see is that we spent almost a year discussing how to do this.
> I'm pretty sure we had enough time to do everything properly.
>
> So, proposal is to stop this discussion and start refactoring.
>
> I do not see any pitfalls and ready to assist if necessary.
>
> чт, 2 авг. 2018 г. в 5:14, Dmitriy Setrakyan :
>
> > I vote to remove the fabric from the build in the easiest way possible.
> Can
> > other Igniters comment?
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Petr Ivanov 
> wrote:
> >
> > > My concern here is exactly about internal build processes — removing
> > > fabric from the name of binary archive (with any way) will break lots
> of
> > > them.
> > > There will be no sacrifices, just lots of work for fixing build
> processes
> > > (where we won’t be able to introduce changes proactively).
> > >
> > > Therefore only fabric removal implementation (quick with some legacy
> left
> > > or full refactoring) is on the agenda.
> > > And this matter should be jugged by the community: currently we have
> (if
> > > our voices are equal) 1:1 with Anton about it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 1 Aug 2018, at 22:28, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Let's focus on what is important here. Our users do not care about
> our
> > > > internal build process.If we could remove the word fabric from the
> next
> > > > release without any significant sacrifices in the build process or
> > making
> > > > it less maintainable, I suggest we do it.
> > > >
> > > > D.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Petr Ivanov 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Simple way with some hack and legacy maintenance: accept patch as it
> > is
> > > >> implemented now.
> > > >> Hard way: full assembly refactoring and hadoop rejection.
> > > >>
> > > >> Anyway, after this is merged to master — complete automation systems
> > > >> revision (TeamCity for example) is required due to heavy hardcode of
> > > >> “fabric” in such systems.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:55, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> OK, so what is the plan? How do we get rid of the fabric name?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> D.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Anton Vinogradov 
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > >  Since you proposing patch to the community, you are the very man
> :)
> > > 
> > >  ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 12:16, Petr Ivanov :
> > > 
> > > > You are convincing the wrong person.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On 1 Aug 2018, at 12:05, Anton Vinogradov 
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Peter,
> > > >>
> > > >> We had a discussion about how to do this properly.
> > > >> Proposed solution cannot be merged, since it makes code harder
> > than
> > > it
> > > > was.
> > > >>
> > > >> The only case is to perform complete refactoring and get rid of
> > all
> > > >> postfixes and other weird stuff.
> > > >>
> > > >> For example
> > > >> - 
> > > >> - 
> > > >> should be definetely removed from code.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 9:39, Peter Ivanov :
> > > >>
> > > >>> The task was ready long ago, but community failed to review and
> > > merge
> > >  it
> > > >>> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> > > >>> Not being a committer, my capabilities of introducing such
> > changes
> > > >> are
> > > >>> limited.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I will update code during this week and will pass for review
> once
> > >  again.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 00:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > >> dsetrak...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > >  Yes, agree, fabric has to be removed. If it is done in 2.7,
> > would
> > > be
> > > >>> great!
> > > 
> > >  On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Denis Magda <
> dma...@apache.org
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Peter, folks,
> > > >
> > > > It's weird, but we have been failing to introduce this minor
> > > change
> > > >>> since
> > > > December. Can we get it done for 2.7 that is being discussed
> at
> > > the
> > >  moment?
> > > > Are there any technical issues that block you from merging
> the
> > > > changes?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:03 PM Peter Ivanov <
> > > mr.wei...@gmail.com>
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Ok, then I will update issue code and start preparation for
> > > build
> > > >> configuration changes.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 at 23:41, Denis Magda  >
> > >  wrote:
> > > >>
> > > 
> > >  With which one — current implementation in issue?
> > > 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Anton Vinogradov]

What I see is that we spent almost a year discussing how to do this.
I'm pretty sure we had enough time to do everything properly.

So, proposal is to stop this discussion and start refactoring.

I do not see any pitfalls and ready to assist if necessary.

чт, 2 авг. 2018 г. в 5:14, Dmitriy Setrakyan :

> I vote to remove the fabric from the build in the easiest way possible. Can
> other Igniters comment?
>
> D.
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
>
> > My concern here is exactly about internal build processes — removing
> > fabric from the name of binary archive (with any way) will break lots of
> > them.
> > There will be no sacrifices, just lots of work for fixing build processes
> > (where we won’t be able to introduce changes proactively).
> >
> > Therefore only fabric removal implementation (quick with some legacy left
> > or full refactoring) is on the agenda.
> > And this matter should be jugged by the community: currently we have (if
> > our voices are equal) 1:1 with Anton about it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 1 Aug 2018, at 22:28, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Let's focus on what is important here. Our users do not care about our
> > > internal build process.If we could remove the word fabric from the next
> > > release without any significant sacrifices in the build process or
> making
> > > it less maintainable, I suggest we do it.
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Petr Ivanov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Simple way with some hack and legacy maintenance: accept patch as it
> is
> > >> implemented now.
> > >> Hard way: full assembly refactoring and hadoop rejection.
> > >>
> > >> Anyway, after this is merged to master — complete automation systems
> > >> revision (TeamCity for example) is required due to heavy hardcode of
> > >> “fabric” in such systems.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:55, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> OK, so what is the plan? How do we get rid of the fabric name?
> > >>>
> > >>> D.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Anton Vinogradov 
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Since you proposing patch to the community, you are the very man :)
> > 
> >  ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 12:16, Petr Ivanov :
> > 
> > > You are convincing the wrong person.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 1 Aug 2018, at 12:05, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Peter,
> > >>
> > >> We had a discussion about how to do this properly.
> > >> Proposed solution cannot be merged, since it makes code harder
> than
> > it
> > > was.
> > >>
> > >> The only case is to perform complete refactoring and get rid of
> all
> > >> postfixes and other weird stuff.
> > >>
> > >> For example
> > >> - 
> > >> - 
> > >> should be definetely removed from code.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 9:39, Peter Ivanov :
> > >>
> > >>> The task was ready long ago, but community failed to review and
> > merge
> >  it
> > >>> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> > >>> Not being a committer, my capabilities of introducing such
> changes
> > >> are
> > >>> limited.
> > >>>
> > >>> I will update code during this week and will pass for review once
> >  again.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 00:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > >> dsetrak...@apache.org
> > >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Yes, agree, fabric has to be removed. If it is done in 2.7,
> would
> > be
> > >>> great!
> > 
> >  On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Denis Magda  >
> > > wrote:
> > 
> > > Peter, folks,
> > >
> > > It's weird, but we have been failing to introduce this minor
> > change
> > >>> since
> > > December. Can we get it done for 2.7 that is being discussed at
> > the
> >  moment?
> > > Are there any technical issues that block you from merging the
> > > changes?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:03 PM Peter Ivanov <
> > mr.wei...@gmail.com>
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ok, then I will update issue code and start preparation for
> > build
> > >> configuration changes.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 at 23:41, Denis Magda 
> >  wrote:
> > >>
> > 
> >  With which one — current implementation in issue?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> That's the answer to your question:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary
> >  preparations —
> > >>> searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
> > >>>  2. update all branches to master because otherwise old
> branch
> >  will
> > >> stop
> > >>> building.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Denis
> > 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

I vote to remove the fabric from the build in the easiest way possible. Can
other Igniters comment?

D.

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:

> My concern here is exactly about internal build processes — removing
> fabric from the name of binary archive (with any way) will break lots of
> them.
> There will be no sacrifices, just lots of work for fixing build processes
> (where we won’t be able to introduce changes proactively).
>
> Therefore only fabric removal implementation (quick with some legacy left
> or full refactoring) is on the agenda.
> And this matter should be jugged by the community: currently we have (if
> our voices are equal) 1:1 with Anton about it.
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Aug 2018, at 22:28, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> wrote:
> >
> > Let's focus on what is important here. Our users do not care about our
> > internal build process.If we could remove the word fabric from the next
> > release without any significant sacrifices in the build process or making
> > it less maintainable, I suggest we do it.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Petr Ivanov 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Simple way with some hack and legacy maintenance: accept patch as it is
> >> implemented now.
> >> Hard way: full assembly refactoring and hadoop rejection.
> >>
> >> Anyway, after this is merged to master — complete automation systems
> >> revision (TeamCity for example) is required due to heavy hardcode of
> >> “fabric” in such systems.
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:55, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> OK, so what is the plan? How do we get rid of the fabric name?
> >>>
> >>> D.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Anton Vinogradov 
> wrote:
> >>>
>  Since you proposing patch to the community, you are the very man :)
> 
>  ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 12:16, Petr Ivanov :
> 
> > You are convincing the wrong person.
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 1 Aug 2018, at 12:05, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> >>
> >> Peter,
> >>
> >> We had a discussion about how to do this properly.
> >> Proposed solution cannot be merged, since it makes code harder than
> it
> > was.
> >>
> >> The only case is to perform complete refactoring and get rid of all
> >> postfixes and other weird stuff.
> >>
> >> For example
> >> - 
> >> - 
> >> should be definetely removed from code.
> >>
> >>
> >> ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 9:39, Peter Ivanov :
> >>
> >>> The task was ready long ago, but community failed to review and
> merge
>  it
> >>> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> >>> Not being a committer, my capabilities of introducing such changes
> >> are
> >>> limited.
> >>>
> >>> I will update code during this week and will pass for review once
>  again.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 00:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >> dsetrak...@apache.org
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Yes, agree, fabric has to be removed. If it is done in 2.7, would
> be
> >>> great!
> 
>  On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Denis Magda 
> > wrote:
> 
> > Peter, folks,
> >
> > It's weird, but we have been failing to introduce this minor
> change
> >>> since
> > December. Can we get it done for 2.7 that is being discussed at
> the
>  moment?
> > Are there any technical issues that block you from merging the
> > changes?
> >
> > --
> > Denis
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:03 PM Peter Ivanov <
> mr.wei...@gmail.com>
>  wrote:
> >
> >> Ok, then I will update issue code and start preparation for
> build
> >> configuration changes.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 at 23:41, Denis Magda 
>  wrote:
> >>
> 
>  With which one — current implementation in issue?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That's the answer to your question:
> >>>
> >>> 1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary
>  preparations —
> >>> searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
> >>>  2. update all branches to master because otherwise old branch
>  will
> >> stop
> >>> building.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Denis
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Petr Ivanov <
> mr.wei...@gmail.com
> >>>
> > wrote:
> >>>
> 
> > On 7 Jun 2018, at 23:04, Denis Magda 
> >>> wrote:
> >
> > I'm fine with the suggested approach.
> 
>  With which one — current implementation in issue?
> 
> 
> > However, not sure we need to update
> > all the branches. Can't branch owners just pull the changes
> >>> back
> > from
> > master if the plan to merge back later?
> 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Petr Ivanov]

My concern here is exactly about internal build processes — removing fabric 
from the name of binary archive (with any way) will break lots of them.
There will be no sacrifices, just lots of work for fixing build processes 
(where we won’t be able to introduce changes proactively).

Therefore only fabric removal implementation (quick with some legacy left or 
full refactoring) is on the agenda.
And this matter should be jugged by the community: currently we have (if our 
voices are equal) 1:1 with Anton about it.




> On 1 Aug 2018, at 22:28, Dmitriy Setrakyan  wrote:
> 
> Let's focus on what is important here. Our users do not care about our
> internal build process.If we could remove the word fabric from the next
> release without any significant sacrifices in the build process or making
> it less maintainable, I suggest we do it.
> 
> D.
> 
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> 
>> Simple way with some hack and legacy maintenance: accept patch as it is
>> implemented now.
>> Hard way: full assembly refactoring and hadoop rejection.
>> 
>> Anyway, after this is merged to master — complete automation systems
>> revision (TeamCity for example) is required due to heavy hardcode of
>> “fabric” in such systems.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:55, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> OK, so what is the plan? How do we get rid of the fabric name?
>>> 
>>> D.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
>>> 
 Since you proposing patch to the community, you are the very man :)
 
 ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 12:16, Petr Ivanov :
 
> You are convincing the wrong person.
> 
> 
> 
>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 12:05, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
>> 
>> Peter,
>> 
>> We had a discussion about how to do this properly.
>> Proposed solution cannot be merged, since it makes code harder than it
> was.
>> 
>> The only case is to perform complete refactoring and get rid of all
>> postfixes and other weird stuff.
>> 
>> For example
>> - 
>> - 
>> should be definetely removed from code.
>> 
>> 
>> ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 9:39, Peter Ivanov :
>> 
>>> The task was ready long ago, but community failed to review and merge
 it
>>> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>> Not being a committer, my capabilities of introducing such changes
>> are
>>> limited.
>>> 
>>> I will update code during this week and will pass for review once
 again.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 00:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> dsetrak...@apache.org
> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Yes, agree, fabric has to be removed. If it is done in 2.7, would be
>>> great!
 
 On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Denis Magda 
> wrote:
 
> Peter, folks,
> 
> It's weird, but we have been failing to introduce this minor change
>>> since
> December. Can we get it done for 2.7 that is being discussed at the
 moment?
> Are there any technical issues that block you from merging the
> changes?
> 
> --
> Denis
> 
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:03 PM Peter Ivanov 
 wrote:
> 
>> Ok, then I will update issue code and start preparation for build
>> configuration changes.
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 at 23:41, Denis Magda 
 wrote:
>> 
 
 With which one — current implementation in issue?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That's the answer to your question:
>>> 
>>> 1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary
 preparations —
>>> searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
>>>  2. update all branches to master because otherwise old branch
 will
>> stop
>>> building.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Denis
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Petr Ivanov >> 
> wrote:
>>> 
 
> On 7 Jun 2018, at 23:04, Denis Magda 
>>> wrote:
> 
> I'm fine with the suggested approach.
 
 With which one — current implementation in issue?
 
 
> However, not sure we need to update
> all the branches. Can't branch owners just pull the changes
>>> back
> from
> master if the plan to merge back later?
 
 Of course, we as an initiative group of this issue should do
 nothing,
>> it
 will lie on shoulders of developers.
 
 
> 
> --
> Denis
> 
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Petr Ivanov <
 mr.wei...@gmail.com>
 wrote:
> 
>> Denis,
>> 
>> 
>> The most 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

Let's focus on what is important here. Our users do not care about our
internal build process.If we could remove the word fabric from the next
release without any significant sacrifices in the build process or making
it less maintainable, I suggest we do it.

D.

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:

> Simple way with some hack and legacy maintenance: accept patch as it is
> implemented now.
> Hard way: full assembly refactoring and hadoop rejection.
>
> Anyway, after this is merged to master — complete automation systems
> revision (TeamCity for example) is required due to heavy hardcode of
> “fabric” in such systems.
>
>
> > On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:55, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> wrote:
> >
> > OK, so what is the plan? How do we get rid of the fabric name?
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> >
> >> Since you proposing patch to the community, you are the very man :)
> >>
> >> ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 12:16, Petr Ivanov :
> >>
> >>> You are convincing the wrong person.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>  On 1 Aug 2018, at 12:05, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> 
>  Peter,
> 
>  We had a discussion about how to do this properly.
>  Proposed solution cannot be merged, since it makes code harder than it
> >>> was.
> 
>  The only case is to perform complete refactoring and get rid of all
>  postfixes and other weird stuff.
> 
>  For example
>  - 
>  - 
>  should be definetely removed from code.
> 
> 
>  ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 9:39, Peter Ivanov :
> 
> > The task was ready long ago, but community failed to review and merge
> >> it
> > ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> > Not being a committer, my capabilities of introducing such changes
> are
> > limited.
> >
> > I will update code during this week and will pass for review once
> >> again.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 00:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org
> >>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, agree, fabric has to be removed. If it is done in 2.7, would be
> > great!
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Denis Magda 
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Peter, folks,
> >>>
> >>> It's weird, but we have been failing to introduce this minor change
> > since
> >>> December. Can we get it done for 2.7 that is being discussed at the
> >> moment?
> >>> Are there any technical issues that block you from merging the
> >>> changes?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Denis
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:03 PM Peter Ivanov 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
>  Ok, then I will update issue code and start preparation for build
>  configuration changes.
> 
> 
>  On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 at 23:41, Denis Magda 
> >> wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> With which one — current implementation in issue?
> >
> >
> > That's the answer to your question:
> >
> > 1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary
> >> preparations —
> > searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
> >   2. update all branches to master because otherwise old branch
> >> will
>  stop
> > building.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Denis
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Petr Ivanov  >
> >>> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> On 7 Jun 2018, at 23:04, Denis Magda 
> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'm fine with the suggested approach.
> >>
> >> With which one — current implementation in issue?
> >>
> >>
> >>> However, not sure we need to update
> >>> all the branches. Can't branch owners just pull the changes
> > back
> >>> from
> >>> master if the plan to merge back later?
> >>
> >> Of course, we as an initiative group of this issue should do
> >> nothing,
>  it
> >> will lie on shoulders of developers.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Denis
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Petr Ivanov <
> >> mr.wei...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
>  Denis,
> 
> 
>  The most simple approach — repack and rearchive binary archive
> >>> after
>  release build, however that would not resolve the problem
> >> globally
> > (and
>  will require fixing every build configuration we have on
> >>> TeamCity).
>  Current approach implemented in task — creates already correct
>  folder
> >> and
>  binary archive name, but old name (with -fabric-) is used in
> >>> almost
> >> every
>  build configuration too and merge code to master will require
> >> to:
>   1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary
> 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Petr Ivanov]

Simple way with some hack and legacy maintenance: accept patch as it is 
implemented now.
Hard way: full assembly refactoring and hadoop rejection.

Anyway, after this is merged to master — complete automation systems revision 
(TeamCity for example) is required due to heavy hardcode of “fabric” in such 
systems.


> On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:55, Dmitriy Setrakyan  wrote:
> 
> OK, so what is the plan? How do we get rid of the fabric name?
> 
> D.
> 
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> 
>> Since you proposing patch to the community, you are the very man :)
>> 
>> ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 12:16, Petr Ivanov :
>> 
>>> You are convincing the wrong person.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On 1 Aug 2018, at 12:05, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
 
 Peter,
 
 We had a discussion about how to do this properly.
 Proposed solution cannot be merged, since it makes code harder than it
>>> was.
 
 The only case is to perform complete refactoring and get rid of all
 postfixes and other weird stuff.
 
 For example
 - 
 - 
 should be definetely removed from code.
 
 
 ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 9:39, Peter Ivanov :
 
> The task was ready long ago, but community failed to review and merge
>> it
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Not being a committer, my capabilities of introducing such changes are
> limited.
> 
> I will update code during this week and will pass for review once
>> again.
> 
> 
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 00:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan >> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, agree, fabric has to be removed. If it is done in 2.7, would be
> great!
>> 
>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Denis Magda 
>>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Peter, folks,
>>> 
>>> It's weird, but we have been failing to introduce this minor change
> since
>>> December. Can we get it done for 2.7 that is being discussed at the
>> moment?
>>> Are there any technical issues that block you from merging the
>>> changes?
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Denis
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:03 PM Peter Ivanov 
>> wrote:
>>> 
 Ok, then I will update issue code and start preparation for build
 configuration changes.
 
 
 On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 at 23:41, Denis Magda 
>> wrote:
 
>> 
>> With which one — current implementation in issue?
> 
> 
> That's the answer to your question:
> 
> 1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary
>> preparations —
> searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
>   2. update all branches to master because otherwise old branch
>> will
 stop
> building.
> 
> 
> --
> Denis
> 
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Petr Ivanov 
>>> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On 7 Jun 2018, at 23:04, Denis Magda 
> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'm fine with the suggested approach.
>> 
>> With which one — current implementation in issue?
>> 
>> 
>>> However, not sure we need to update
>>> all the branches. Can't branch owners just pull the changes
> back
>>> from
>>> master if the plan to merge back later?
>> 
>> Of course, we as an initiative group of this issue should do
>> nothing,
 it
>> will lie on shoulders of developers.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Denis
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Petr Ivanov <
>> mr.wei...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
 Denis,
 
 
 The most simple approach — repack and rearchive binary archive
>>> after
 release build, however that would not resolve the problem
>> globally
> (and
 will require fixing every build configuration we have on
>>> TeamCity).
 Current approach implemented in task — creates already correct
 folder
>> and
 binary archive name, but old name (with -fabric-) is used in
>>> almost
>> every
 build configuration too and merge code to master will require
>> to:
  1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary
> preparations
 — searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
  2. update all branches to master because otherwise old
> branch
 will
 stop building.
 
 WDYT?
 
 
 
> On 7 Jun 2018, at 22:42, Denis Magda 
>> wrote:
> 
> Petr,
> 
> Thanks for pulling up the conversation.
> 
> I still prefer us not to complicate the things and just
> remove
> "fabric"
> from the *package 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

OK, so what is the plan? How do we get rid of the fabric name?

D.

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:

> Since you proposing patch to the community, you are the very man :)
>
> ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 12:16, Petr Ivanov :
>
> > You are convincing the wrong person.
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 1 Aug 2018, at 12:05, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter,
> > >
> > > We had a discussion about how to do this properly.
> > > Proposed solution cannot be merged, since it makes code harder than it
> > was.
> > >
> > > The only case is to perform complete refactoring and get rid of all
> > > postfixes and other weird stuff.
> > >
> > > For example
> > > - 
> > > - 
> > > should be definetely removed from code.
> > >
> > >
> > > ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 9:39, Peter Ivanov :
> > >
> > >> The task was ready long ago, but community failed to review and merge
> it
> > >> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> > >> Not being a committer, my capabilities of introducing such changes are
> > >> limited.
> > >>
> > >> I will update code during this week and will pass for review once
> again.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 00:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan  >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Yes, agree, fabric has to be removed. If it is done in 2.7, would be
> > >> great!
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Denis Magda 
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Peter, folks,
> > 
> >  It's weird, but we have been failing to introduce this minor change
> > >> since
> >  December. Can we get it done for 2.7 that is being discussed at the
> > >>> moment?
> >  Are there any technical issues that block you from merging the
> > changes?
> > 
> >  --
> >  Denis
> > 
> >  On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:03 PM Peter Ivanov 
> > >>> wrote:
> > 
> > > Ok, then I will update issue code and start preparation for build
> > > configuration changes.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 at 23:41, Denis Magda 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>> With which one — current implementation in issue?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> That's the answer to your question:
> > >>
> > >> 1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary
> > >>> preparations —
> > >> searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
> > >>2. update all branches to master because otherwise old branch
> > >>> will
> > > stop
> > >> building.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Denis
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Petr Ivanov 
> >  wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> >  On 7 Jun 2018, at 23:04, Denis Magda 
> > >> wrote:
> > 
> >  I'm fine with the suggested approach.
> > >>>
> > >>> With which one — current implementation in issue?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >  However, not sure we need to update
> >  all the branches. Can't branch owners just pull the changes
> > >> back
> >  from
> >  master if the plan to merge back later?
> > >>>
> > >>> Of course, we as an initiative group of this issue should do
> > >>> nothing,
> > > it
> > >>> will lie on shoulders of developers.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > 
> >  --
> >  Denis
> > 
> >  On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Petr Ivanov <
> > >>> mr.wei...@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > 
> > > Denis,
> > >
> > >
> > > The most simple approach — repack and rearchive binary archive
> >  after
> > > release build, however that would not resolve the problem
> > >>> globally
> > >> (and
> > > will require fixing every build configuration we have on
> >  TeamCity).
> > > Current approach implemented in task — creates already correct
> > > folder
> > >>> and
> > > binary archive name, but old name (with -fabric-) is used in
> >  almost
> > >>> every
> > > build configuration too and merge code to master will require
> > >>> to:
> > >   1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary
> > >> preparations
> > > — searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
> > >   2. update all branches to master because otherwise old
> > >> branch
> > > will
> > > stop building.
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 7 Jun 2018, at 22:42, Denis Magda 
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Petr,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for pulling up the conversation.
> > >>
> > >> I still prefer us not to complicate the things and just
> > >> remove
> > >> "fabric"
> > >> from the *package name*. Use the easiest way possible.
> > >>
> > >> Personally, I don't care about Hadoop and would not suggest
> > >> the
> > >>> community
> > >> wasting its time on it. So, just rename the suffixes/prefixes
> > >>> of
> > > the
> > > build
> > >> 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Anton Vinogradov]

Since you proposing patch to the community, you are the very man :)

ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 12:16, Petr Ivanov :

> You are convincing the wrong person.
>
>
>
> > On 1 Aug 2018, at 12:05, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> >
> > Peter,
> >
> > We had a discussion about how to do this properly.
> > Proposed solution cannot be merged, since it makes code harder than it
> was.
> >
> > The only case is to perform complete refactoring and get rid of all
> > postfixes and other weird stuff.
> >
> > For example
> > - 
> > - 
> > should be definetely removed from code.
> >
> >
> > ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 9:39, Peter Ivanov :
> >
> >> The task was ready long ago, but community failed to review and merge it
> >> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> >> Not being a committer, my capabilities of introducing such changes are
> >> limited.
> >>
> >> I will update code during this week and will pass for review once again.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 00:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yes, agree, fabric has to be removed. If it is done in 2.7, would be
> >> great!
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Denis Magda 
> wrote:
> >>>
>  Peter, folks,
> 
>  It's weird, but we have been failing to introduce this minor change
> >> since
>  December. Can we get it done for 2.7 that is being discussed at the
> >>> moment?
>  Are there any technical issues that block you from merging the
> changes?
> 
>  --
>  Denis
> 
>  On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:03 PM Peter Ivanov 
> >>> wrote:
> 
> > Ok, then I will update issue code and start preparation for build
> > configuration changes.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 at 23:41, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> With which one — current implementation in issue?
> >>
> >>
> >> That's the answer to your question:
> >>
> >> 1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary
> >>> preparations —
> >> searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
> >>2. update all branches to master because otherwise old branch
> >>> will
> > stop
> >> building.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Denis
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Petr Ivanov 
>  wrote:
> >>
> >>>
>  On 7 Jun 2018, at 23:04, Denis Magda 
> >> wrote:
> 
>  I'm fine with the suggested approach.
> >>>
> >>> With which one — current implementation in issue?
> >>>
> >>>
>  However, not sure we need to update
>  all the branches. Can't branch owners just pull the changes
> >> back
>  from
>  master if the plan to merge back later?
> >>>
> >>> Of course, we as an initiative group of this issue should do
> >>> nothing,
> > it
> >>> will lie on shoulders of developers.
> >>>
> >>>
> 
>  --
>  Denis
> 
>  On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Petr Ivanov <
> >>> mr.wei...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> 
> > Denis,
> >
> >
> > The most simple approach — repack and rearchive binary archive
>  after
> > release build, however that would not resolve the problem
> >>> globally
> >> (and
> > will require fixing every build configuration we have on
>  TeamCity).
> > Current approach implemented in task — creates already correct
> > folder
> >>> and
> > binary archive name, but old name (with -fabric-) is used in
>  almost
> >>> every
> > build configuration too and merge code to master will require
> >>> to:
> >   1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary
> >> preparations
> > — searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
> >   2. update all branches to master because otherwise old
> >> branch
> > will
> > stop building.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 7 Jun 2018, at 22:42, Denis Magda 
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Petr,
> >>
> >> Thanks for pulling up the conversation.
> >>
> >> I still prefer us not to complicate the things and just
> >> remove
> >> "fabric"
> >> from the *package name*. Use the easiest way possible.
> >>
> >> Personally, I don't care about Hadoop and would not suggest
> >> the
> >>> community
> >> wasting its time on it. So, just rename the suffixes/prefixes
> >>> of
> > the
> > build
> >> files the way you like to address Anton's concerns.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Denis
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:49 AM, Petr Ivanov <
> >>> mr.wei...@gmail.com
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Igniters,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Lets define once again what should be done in this [1] task?
> >>> If current implementation is good, than I’ll update it to
> >>> master
> 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Petr Ivanov]

You are convincing the wrong person.



> On 1 Aug 2018, at 12:05, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> 
> Peter,
> 
> We had a discussion about how to do this properly.
> Proposed solution cannot be merged, since it makes code harder than it was.
> 
> The only case is to perform complete refactoring and get rid of all
> postfixes and other weird stuff.
> 
> For example
> - 
> - 
> should be definetely removed from code.
> 
> 
> ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 9:39, Peter Ivanov :
> 
>> The task was ready long ago, but community failed to review and merge it
>> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>> Not being a committer, my capabilities of introducing such changes are
>> limited.
>> 
>> I will update code during this week and will pass for review once again.
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 00:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes, agree, fabric has to be removed. If it is done in 2.7, would be
>> great!
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>>> 
 Peter, folks,
 
 It's weird, but we have been failing to introduce this minor change
>> since
 December. Can we get it done for 2.7 that is being discussed at the
>>> moment?
 Are there any technical issues that block you from merging the changes?
 
 --
 Denis
 
 On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:03 PM Peter Ivanov 
>>> wrote:
 
> Ok, then I will update issue code and start preparation for build
> configuration changes.
> 
> 
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 at 23:41, Denis Magda  wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> With which one — current implementation in issue?
>> 
>> 
>> That's the answer to your question:
>> 
>> 1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary
>>> preparations —
>> searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
>>2. update all branches to master because otherwise old branch
>>> will
> stop
>> building.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Denis
>> 
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Petr Ivanov 
 wrote:
>> 
>>> 
 On 7 Jun 2018, at 23:04, Denis Magda 
>> wrote:
 
 I'm fine with the suggested approach.
>>> 
>>> With which one — current implementation in issue?
>>> 
>>> 
 However, not sure we need to update
 all the branches. Can't branch owners just pull the changes
>> back
 from
 master if the plan to merge back later?
>>> 
>>> Of course, we as an initiative group of this issue should do
>>> nothing,
> it
>>> will lie on shoulders of developers.
>>> 
>>> 
 
 --
 Denis
 
 On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Petr Ivanov <
>>> mr.wei...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
 
> Denis,
> 
> 
> The most simple approach — repack and rearchive binary archive
 after
> release build, however that would not resolve the problem
>>> globally
>> (and
> will require fixing every build configuration we have on
 TeamCity).
> Current approach implemented in task — creates already correct
> folder
>>> and
> binary archive name, but old name (with -fabric-) is used in
 almost
>>> every
> build configuration too and merge code to master will require
>>> to:
>   1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary
>> preparations
> — searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
>   2. update all branches to master because otherwise old
>> branch
> will
> stop building.
> 
> WDYT?
> 
> 
> 
>> On 7 Jun 2018, at 22:42, Denis Magda 
>>> wrote:
>> 
>> Petr,
>> 
>> Thanks for pulling up the conversation.
>> 
>> I still prefer us not to complicate the things and just
>> remove
>> "fabric"
>> from the *package name*. Use the easiest way possible.
>> 
>> Personally, I don't care about Hadoop and would not suggest
>> the
>>> community
>> wasting its time on it. So, just rename the suffixes/prefixes
>>> of
> the
> build
>> files the way you like to address Anton's concerns.
>> 
>> --
>> Denis
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:49 AM, Petr Ivanov <
>>> mr.wei...@gmail.com
> 
>>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Igniters,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Lets define once again what should be done in this [1] task?
>>> If current implementation is good, than I’ll update it to
>>> master
> and
> pass
>>> for review.
>>> 
>>> Yet, there is other part of the task which concerns our
>> build
> server
>>> — I
>>> assume that almost all our build configurations will fail
>> due
>>> to
>> name
>>> change and there is no simple way of updating configurations
 other
>>> then
>>> merge task to master and start fixing 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Anton Vinogradov]

Peter,

We had a discussion about how to do this properly.
Proposed solution cannot be merged, since it makes code harder than it was.

The only case is to perform complete refactoring and get rid of all
postfixes and other weird stuff.

For example
- 
- 
should be definetely removed from code.


ср, 1 авг. 2018 г. в 9:39, Peter Ivanov :

> The task was ready long ago, but community failed to review and merge it
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Not being a committer, my capabilities of introducing such changes are
> limited.
>
> I will update code during this week and will pass for review once again.
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 00:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, agree, fabric has to be removed. If it is done in 2.7, would be
> great!
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >
> > > Peter, folks,
> > >
> > > It's weird, but we have been failing to introduce this minor change
> since
> > > December. Can we get it done for 2.7 that is being discussed at the
> > moment?
> > > Are there any technical issues that block you from merging the changes?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:03 PM Peter Ivanov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ok, then I will update issue code and start preparation for build
> > > > configuration changes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 at 23:41, Denis Magda  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With which one — current implementation in issue?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That's the answer to your question:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary
> > preparations —
> > > > > searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
> > > > > 2. update all branches to master because otherwise old branch
> > will
> > > > stop
> > > > > building.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Petr Ivanov 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 7 Jun 2018, at 23:04, Denis Magda 
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm fine with the suggested approach.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With which one — current implementation in issue?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, not sure we need to update
> > > > > > > all the branches. Can't branch owners just pull the changes
> back
> > > from
> > > > > > > master if the plan to merge back later?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course, we as an initiative group of this issue should do
> > nothing,
> > > > it
> > > > > > will lie on shoulders of developers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Petr Ivanov <
> > mr.wei...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Denis,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> The most simple approach — repack and rearchive binary archive
> > > after
> > > > > > >> release build, however that would not resolve the problem
> > globally
> > > > > (and
> > > > > > >> will require fixing every build configuration we have on
> > > TeamCity).
> > > > > > >> Current approach implemented in task — creates already correct
> > > > folder
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> binary archive name, but old name (with -fabric-) is used in
> > > almost
> > > > > > every
> > > > > > >> build configuration too and merge code to master will require
> > to:
> > > > > > >>1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary
> > > > > preparations
> > > > > > >> — searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
> > > > > > >>2. update all branches to master because otherwise old
> branch
> > > > will
> > > > > > >> stop building.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> WDYT?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> On 7 Jun 2018, at 22:42, Denis Magda 
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Petr,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Thanks for pulling up the conversation.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I still prefer us not to complicate the things and just
> remove
> > > > > "fabric"
> > > > > > >>> from the *package name*. Use the easiest way possible.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Personally, I don't care about Hadoop and would not suggest
> the
> > > > > > community
> > > > > > >>> wasting its time on it. So, just rename the suffixes/prefixes
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> build
> > > > > > >>> files the way you like to address Anton's concerns.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:49 AM, Petr Ivanov <
> > mr.wei...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >  Igniters,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  Lets define once again what should be done in this [1] task?
> > > > > >  If current implementation is good, than I’ll update it to
> > master
> > > > and
> > > > > > >> pass
> > > > > >  for review.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  Yet, there is other part of the task which concerns our
> build
> > 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Peter Ivanov]

The task was ready long ago, but community failed to review and merge it
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Not being a committer, my capabilities of introducing such changes are
limited.

I will update code during this week and will pass for review once again.


On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 00:24, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
wrote:

> Yes, agree, fabric has to be removed. If it is done in 2.7, would be great!
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>
> > Peter, folks,
> >
> > It's weird, but we have been failing to introduce this minor change since
> > December. Can we get it done for 2.7 that is being discussed at the
> moment?
> > Are there any technical issues that block you from merging the changes?
> >
> > --
> > Denis
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:03 PM Peter Ivanov 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, then I will update issue code and start preparation for build
> > > configuration changes.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 at 23:41, Denis Magda  wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > With which one — current implementation in issue?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's the answer to your question:
> > > >
> > > > 1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary
> preparations —
> > > > searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
> > > > 2. update all branches to master because otherwise old branch
> will
> > > stop
> > > > building.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Petr Ivanov 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 7 Jun 2018, at 23:04, Denis Magda  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm fine with the suggested approach.
> > > > >
> > > > > With which one — current implementation in issue?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > However, not sure we need to update
> > > > > > all the branches. Can't branch owners just pull the changes back
> > from
> > > > > > master if the plan to merge back later?
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, we as an initiative group of this issue should do
> nothing,
> > > it
> > > > > will lie on shoulders of developers.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Petr Ivanov <
> mr.wei...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Denis,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The most simple approach — repack and rearchive binary archive
> > after
> > > > > >> release build, however that would not resolve the problem
> globally
> > > > (and
> > > > > >> will require fixing every build configuration we have on
> > TeamCity).
> > > > > >> Current approach implemented in task — creates already correct
> > > folder
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> binary archive name, but old name (with -fabric-) is used in
> > almost
> > > > > every
> > > > > >> build configuration too and merge code to master will require
> to:
> > > > > >>1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary
> > > > preparations
> > > > > >> — searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
> > > > > >>2. update all branches to master because otherwise old branch
> > > will
> > > > > >> stop building.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> WDYT?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> On 7 Jun 2018, at 22:42, Denis Magda 
> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Petr,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Thanks for pulling up the conversation.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I still prefer us not to complicate the things and just remove
> > > > "fabric"
> > > > > >>> from the *package name*. Use the easiest way possible.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Personally, I don't care about Hadoop and would not suggest the
> > > > > community
> > > > > >>> wasting its time on it. So, just rename the suffixes/prefixes
> of
> > > the
> > > > > >> build
> > > > > >>> files the way you like to address Anton's concerns.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> --
> > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:49 AM, Petr Ivanov <
> mr.wei...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >  Igniters,
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >  Lets define once again what should be done in this [1] task?
> > > > >  If current implementation is good, than I’ll update it to
> master
> > > and
> > > > > >> pass
> > > > >  for review.
> > > > > 
> > > > >  Yet, there is other part of the task which concerns our build
> > > server
> > > > > — I
> > > > >  assume that almost all our build configurations will fail due
> to
> > > > name
> > > > >  change and there is no simple way of updating configurations
> > other
> > > > > then
> > > > >  merge task to master and start fixing failing builds.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >  [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On 10 Feb 2018, at 01:56, Denis Magda 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I don't think we necessarily need to remove 'fabric' word
> from
> > > > every
> > > > >  file
> > > > > >> in 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

Yes, agree, fabric has to be removed. If it is done in 2.7, would be great!

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:

> Peter, folks,
>
> It's weird, but we have been failing to introduce this minor change since
> December. Can we get it done for 2.7 that is being discussed at the moment?
> Are there any technical issues that block you from merging the changes?
>
> --
> Denis
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:03 PM Peter Ivanov  wrote:
>
> > Ok, then I will update issue code and start preparation for build
> > configuration changes.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 at 23:41, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > With which one — current implementation in issue?
> > >
> > >
> > > That's the answer to your question:
> > >
> > > 1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary preparations —
> > > searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
> > > 2. update all branches to master because otherwise old branch will
> > stop
> > > building.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Petr Ivanov 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > On 7 Jun 2018, at 23:04, Denis Magda  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm fine with the suggested approach.
> > > >
> > > > With which one — current implementation in issue?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > However, not sure we need to update
> > > > > all the branches. Can't branch owners just pull the changes back
> from
> > > > > master if the plan to merge back later?
> > > >
> > > > Of course, we as an initiative group of this issue should do nothing,
> > it
> > > > will lie on shoulders of developers.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Petr Ivanov 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Denis,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The most simple approach — repack and rearchive binary archive
> after
> > > > >> release build, however that would not resolve the problem globally
> > > (and
> > > > >> will require fixing every build configuration we have on
> TeamCity).
> > > > >> Current approach implemented in task — creates already correct
> > folder
> > > > and
> > > > >> binary archive name, but old name (with -fabric-) is used in
> almost
> > > > every
> > > > >> build configuration too and merge code to master will require to:
> > > > >>1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary
> > > preparations
> > > > >> — searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
> > > > >>2. update all branches to master because otherwise old branch
> > will
> > > > >> stop building.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> WDYT?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On 7 Jun 2018, at 22:42, Denis Magda  wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Petr,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks for pulling up the conversation.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I still prefer us not to complicate the things and just remove
> > > "fabric"
> > > > >>> from the *package name*. Use the easiest way possible.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Personally, I don't care about Hadoop and would not suggest the
> > > > community
> > > > >>> wasting its time on it. So, just rename the suffixes/prefixes of
> > the
> > > > >> build
> > > > >>> files the way you like to address Anton's concerns.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> Denis
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:49 AM, Petr Ivanov  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > >  Igniters,
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  Lets define once again what should be done in this [1] task?
> > > >  If current implementation is good, than I’ll update it to master
> > and
> > > > >> pass
> > > >  for review.
> > > > 
> > > >  Yet, there is other part of the task which concerns our build
> > server
> > > > — I
> > > >  assume that almost all our build configurations will fail due to
> > > name
> > > >  change and there is no simple way of updating configurations
> other
> > > > then
> > > >  merge task to master and start fixing failing builds.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > On 10 Feb 2018, at 01:56, Denis Magda 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I don't think we necessarily need to remove 'fabric' word from
> > > every
> > > >  file
> > > > >> in the project, we just need to rename the name of
> downloadable
> > > > >> package.
> > > > >
> > > > > Couldn’t say it better than you, Val. Thanks for pitching in :)
> > > This
> > > > is
> > > >  exactly what the ticket is about.
> > > > >
> > > > > —
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Feb 9, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > >  valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Anton,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I don't think we necessarily need to remove 'fabric' word from
> > > every
> > > >  file
> > > > >> in the project, we just need to rename the name of
> 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Denis Magda]

Peter, folks,

It's weird, but we have been failing to introduce this minor change since
December. Can we get it done for 2.7 that is being discussed at the moment?
Are there any technical issues that block you from merging the changes?

--
Denis

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:03 PM Peter Ivanov  wrote:

> Ok, then I will update issue code and start preparation for build
> configuration changes.
>
>
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 at 23:41, Denis Magda  wrote:
>
> > >
> > > With which one — current implementation in issue?
> >
> >
> > That's the answer to your question:
> >
> > 1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary preparations —
> > searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
> > 2. update all branches to master because otherwise old branch will
> stop
> > building.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Denis
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > On 7 Jun 2018, at 23:04, Denis Magda  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm fine with the suggested approach.
> > >
> > > With which one — current implementation in issue?
> > >
> > >
> > > > However, not sure we need to update
> > > > all the branches. Can't branch owners just pull the changes back from
> > > > master if the plan to merge back later?
> > >
> > > Of course, we as an initiative group of this issue should do nothing,
> it
> > > will lie on shoulders of developers.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Petr Ivanov 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Denis,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> The most simple approach — repack and rearchive binary archive after
> > > >> release build, however that would not resolve the problem globally
> > (and
> > > >> will require fixing every build configuration we have on TeamCity).
> > > >> Current approach implemented in task — creates already correct
> folder
> > > and
> > > >> binary archive name, but old name (with -fabric-) is used in almost
> > > every
> > > >> build configuration too and merge code to master will require to:
> > > >>1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary
> > preparations
> > > >> — searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
> > > >>2. update all branches to master because otherwise old branch
> will
> > > >> stop building.
> > > >>
> > > >> WDYT?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> On 7 Jun 2018, at 22:42, Denis Magda  wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Petr,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks for pulling up the conversation.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I still prefer us not to complicate the things and just remove
> > "fabric"
> > > >>> from the *package name*. Use the easiest way possible.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Personally, I don't care about Hadoop and would not suggest the
> > > community
> > > >>> wasting its time on it. So, just rename the suffixes/prefixes of
> the
> > > >> build
> > > >>> files the way you like to address Anton's concerns.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Denis
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:49 AM, Petr Ivanov 
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > >  Igniters,
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  Lets define once again what should be done in this [1] task?
> > >  If current implementation is good, than I’ll update it to master
> and
> > > >> pass
> > >  for review.
> > > 
> > >  Yet, there is other part of the task which concerns our build
> server
> > > — I
> > >  assume that almost all our build configurations will fail due to
> > name
> > >  change and there is no simple way of updating configurations other
> > > then
> > >  merge task to master and start fixing failing builds.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > On 10 Feb 2018, at 01:56, Denis Magda  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I don't think we necessarily need to remove 'fabric' word from
> > every
> > >  file
> > > >> in the project, we just need to rename the name of downloadable
> > > >> package.
> > > >
> > > > Couldn’t say it better than you, Val. Thanks for pitching in :)
> > This
> > > is
> > >  exactly what the ticket is about.
> > > >
> > > > —
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > >> On Feb 9, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >  valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Anton,
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't think we necessarily need to remove 'fabric' word from
> > every
> > >  file
> > > >> in the project, we just need to rename the name of downloadable
> > >  package. Is
> > > >> there any other place where 'fabric' is exposed to the user?
> > > >>
> > > >> If that's the case, it should not be a big change, no?
> > > >>
> > > >> -Val
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:49 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> > >  avinogra...@gridgain.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Denis,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> You're proposing changes without viewing a code :)

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Peter Ivanov]

Ok, then I will update issue code and start preparation for build
configuration changes.


On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 at 23:41, Denis Magda  wrote:

> >
> > With which one — current implementation in issue?
>
>
> That's the answer to your question:
>
> 1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary preparations —
> searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
> 2. update all branches to master because otherwise old branch will stop
> building.
>
>
> --
> Denis
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
>
> >
> > > On 7 Jun 2018, at 23:04, Denis Magda  wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm fine with the suggested approach.
> >
> > With which one — current implementation in issue?
> >
> >
> > > However, not sure we need to update
> > > all the branches. Can't branch owners just pull the changes back from
> > > master if the plan to merge back later?
> >
> > Of course, we as an initiative group of this issue should do nothing, it
> > will lie on shoulders of developers.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Petr Ivanov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Denis,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The most simple approach — repack and rearchive binary archive after
> > >> release build, however that would not resolve the problem globally
> (and
> > >> will require fixing every build configuration we have on TeamCity).
> > >> Current approach implemented in task — creates already correct folder
> > and
> > >> binary archive name, but old name (with -fabric-) is used in almost
> > every
> > >> build configuration too and merge code to master will require to:
> > >>1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary
> preparations
> > >> — searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
> > >>2. update all branches to master because otherwise old branch will
> > >> stop building.
> > >>
> > >> WDYT?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On 7 Jun 2018, at 22:42, Denis Magda  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Petr,
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks for pulling up the conversation.
> > >>>
> > >>> I still prefer us not to complicate the things and just remove
> "fabric"
> > >>> from the *package name*. Use the easiest way possible.
> > >>>
> > >>> Personally, I don't care about Hadoop and would not suggest the
> > community
> > >>> wasting its time on it. So, just rename the suffixes/prefixes of the
> > >> build
> > >>> files the way you like to address Anton's concerns.
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Denis
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:49 AM, Petr Ivanov 
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Igniters,
> > 
> > 
> >  Lets define once again what should be done in this [1] task?
> >  If current implementation is good, than I’ll update it to master and
> > >> pass
> >  for review.
> > 
> >  Yet, there is other part of the task which concerns our build server
> > — I
> >  assume that almost all our build configurations will fail due to
> name
> >  change and there is no simple way of updating configurations other
> > then
> >  merge task to master and start fixing failing builds.
> > 
> > 
> >  [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > On 10 Feb 2018, at 01:56, Denis Magda  wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't think we necessarily need to remove 'fabric' word from
> every
> >  file
> > >> in the project, we just need to rename the name of downloadable
> > >> package.
> > >
> > > Couldn’t say it better than you, Val. Thanks for pitching in :)
> This
> > is
> >  exactly what the ticket is about.
> > >
> > > —
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >> On Feb 9, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >  valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Anton,
> > >>
> > >> I don't think we necessarily need to remove 'fabric' word from
> every
> >  file
> > >> in the project, we just need to rename the name of downloadable
> >  package. Is
> > >> there any other place where 'fabric' is exposed to the user?
> > >>
> > >> If that's the case, it should not be a big change, no?
> > >>
> > >> -Val
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:49 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> >  avinogra...@gridgain.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Denis,
> > >>>
> > >>> You're proposing changes without viewing a code :)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Denis Magda 
> >  wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Anton,
> > 
> >  What’s wrong if we just go ahead and:
> >  - replace “fabric” with “ignite”
> >  - replace “hadoop” with “ignite-hadoop"
> > 
> >  —
> >  Denis
> > 
> > > On Feb 8, 2018, at 1:51 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> >  avinogra...@gridgain.com
> > 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Denis,
> > >
> > > "hadoop" and "fabric" words work on same engine.
> > >
> > 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Denis Magda]

>
> With which one — current implementation in issue?


That's the answer to your question:

1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary preparations —
searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
2. update all branches to master because otherwise old branch will stop
building.


--
Denis

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:

>
> > On 7 Jun 2018, at 23:04, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >
> > I'm fine with the suggested approach.
>
> With which one — current implementation in issue?
>
>
> > However, not sure we need to update
> > all the branches. Can't branch owners just pull the changes back from
> > master if the plan to merge back later?
>
> Of course, we as an initiative group of this issue should do nothing, it
> will lie on shoulders of developers.
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Denis
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Petr Ivanov 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Denis,
> >>
> >>
> >> The most simple approach — repack and rearchive binary archive after
> >> release build, however that would not resolve the problem globally (and
> >> will require fixing every build configuration we have on TeamCity).
> >> Current approach implemented in task — creates already correct folder
> and
> >> binary archive name, but old name (with -fabric-) is used in almost
> every
> >> build configuration too and merge code to master will require to:
> >>1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary preparations
> >> — searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
> >>2. update all branches to master because otherwise old branch will
> >> stop building.
> >>
> >> WDYT?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 7 Jun 2018, at 22:42, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Petr,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for pulling up the conversation.
> >>>
> >>> I still prefer us not to complicate the things and just remove "fabric"
> >>> from the *package name*. Use the easiest way possible.
> >>>
> >>> Personally, I don't care about Hadoop and would not suggest the
> community
> >>> wasting its time on it. So, just rename the suffixes/prefixes of the
> >> build
> >>> files the way you like to address Anton's concerns.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Denis
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:49 AM, Petr Ivanov 
> wrote:
> >>>
>  Igniters,
> 
> 
>  Lets define once again what should be done in this [1] task?
>  If current implementation is good, than I’ll update it to master and
> >> pass
>  for review.
> 
>  Yet, there is other part of the task which concerns our build server
> — I
>  assume that almost all our build configurations will fail due to name
>  change and there is no simple way of updating configurations other
> then
>  merge task to master and start fixing failing builds.
> 
> 
>  [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251
> 
> 
> 
> > On 10 Feb 2018, at 01:56, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think we necessarily need to remove 'fabric' word from every
>  file
> >> in the project, we just need to rename the name of downloadable
> >> package.
> >
> > Couldn’t say it better than you, Val. Thanks for pitching in :) This
> is
>  exactly what the ticket is about.
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
> >> On Feb 9, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>  valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Anton,
> >>
> >> I don't think we necessarily need to remove 'fabric' word from every
>  file
> >> in the project, we just need to rename the name of downloadable
>  package. Is
> >> there any other place where 'fabric' is exposed to the user?
> >>
> >> If that's the case, it should not be a big change, no?
> >>
> >> -Val
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:49 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
>  avinogra...@gridgain.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Denis,
> >>>
> >>> You're proposing changes without viewing a code :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Denis Magda 
>  wrote:
> >>>
>  Anton,
> 
>  What’s wrong if we just go ahead and:
>  - replace “fabric” with “ignite”
>  - replace “hadoop” with “ignite-hadoop"
> 
>  —
>  Denis
> 
> > On Feb 8, 2018, at 1:51 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
>  avinogra...@gridgain.com
> 
>  wrote:
> >
> > Denis,
> >
> > "hadoop" and "fabric" words work on same engine.
> >
> > We have special assembly desctiptors, for example:
> > dependencies-fabric.xml
> > dependencies-fabric-lgpl.xml
> > dependencies-hadoop.xml
> > release-base.xml
> > release-fabric.xml
> > release-fabric-base.xml
> > release-fabric-lgpl.xml
> > release-hadoop.xml
> >
> > So, I'ts impossible for now to remove "fabric" without "hadoop"
> >>> removal.
> > Only one case is to 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Petr Ivanov]

> On 7 Jun 2018, at 23:04, Denis Magda  wrote:
> 
> I'm fine with the suggested approach.

With which one — current implementation in issue?


> However, not sure we need to update
> all the branches. Can't branch owners just pull the changes back from
> master if the plan to merge back later?

Of course, we as an initiative group of this issue should do nothing, it will 
lie on shoulders of developers.


> 
> --
> Denis
> 
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> 
>> Denis,
>> 
>> 
>> The most simple approach — repack and rearchive binary archive after
>> release build, however that would not resolve the problem globally (and
>> will require fixing every build configuration we have on TeamCity).
>> Current approach implemented in task — creates already correct folder and
>> binary archive name, but old name (with -fabric-) is used in almost every
>> build configuration too and merge code to master will require to:
>>1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary preparations
>> — searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
>>2. update all branches to master because otherwise old branch will
>> stop building.
>> 
>> WDYT?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 7 Jun 2018, at 22:42, Denis Magda  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Petr,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for pulling up the conversation.
>>> 
>>> I still prefer us not to complicate the things and just remove "fabric"
>>> from the *package name*. Use the easiest way possible.
>>> 
>>> Personally, I don't care about Hadoop and would not suggest the community
>>> wasting its time on it. So, just rename the suffixes/prefixes of the
>> build
>>> files the way you like to address Anton's concerns.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Denis
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:49 AM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
>>> 
 Igniters,
 
 
 Lets define once again what should be done in this [1] task?
 If current implementation is good, than I’ll update it to master and
>> pass
 for review.
 
 Yet, there is other part of the task which concerns our build server — I
 assume that almost all our build configurations will fail due to name
 change and there is no simple way of updating configurations other then
 merge task to master and start fixing failing builds.
 
 
 [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251
 
 
 
> On 10 Feb 2018, at 01:56, Denis Magda  wrote:
> 
>> I don't think we necessarily need to remove 'fabric' word from every
 file
>> in the project, we just need to rename the name of downloadable
>> package.
> 
> Couldn’t say it better than you, Val. Thanks for pitching in :) This is
 exactly what the ticket is about.
> 
> —
> Denis
> 
>> On Feb 9, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
 valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Anton,
>> 
>> I don't think we necessarily need to remove 'fabric' word from every
 file
>> in the project, we just need to rename the name of downloadable
 package. Is
>> there any other place where 'fabric' is exposed to the user?
>> 
>> If that's the case, it should not be a big change, no?
>> 
>> -Val
>> 
>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:49 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
 avinogra...@gridgain.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Denis,
>>> 
>>> You're proposing changes without viewing a code :)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Denis Magda 
 wrote:
>>> 
 Anton,
 
 What’s wrong if we just go ahead and:
 - replace “fabric” with “ignite”
 - replace “hadoop” with “ignite-hadoop"
 
 —
 Denis
 
> On Feb 8, 2018, at 1:51 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
 avinogra...@gridgain.com
 
 wrote:
> 
> Denis,
> 
> "hadoop" and "fabric" words work on same engine.
> 
> We have special assembly desctiptors, for example:
> dependencies-fabric.xml
> dependencies-fabric-lgpl.xml
> dependencies-hadoop.xml
> release-base.xml
> release-fabric.xml
> release-fabric-base.xml
> release-fabric-lgpl.xml
> release-hadoop.xml
> 
> So, I'ts impossible for now to remove "fabric" without "hadoop"
>>> removal.
> Only one case is to make some ditry hack, but that's not a good
>> idea.
> 
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Sergey Kozlov <
>> skoz...@gridgain.com
> 
 wrote:
> 
>> +1 hadoop accelerator removing for AI 2.5
>> 
>> Also probably IGFS should be either removed or refactored, e.g.
 create
 FS
>> directly over the data region without using "cache" entity as an
>> intermidiate stage
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:13 AM, Denis Magda 
>>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Anton,
>>> 
>>> I don’t get how the hadoop editions 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Denis Magda]

I'm fine with the suggested approach. However, not sure we need to update
all the branches. Can't branch owners just pull the changes back from
master if the plan to merge back later?

--
Denis

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:

> Denis,
>
>
> The most simple approach — repack and rearchive binary archive after
> release build, however that would not resolve the problem globally (and
> will require fixing every build configuration we have on TeamCity).
> Current approach implemented in task — creates already correct folder and
> binary archive name, but old name (with -fabric-) is used in almost every
> build configuration too and merge code to master will require to:
> 1. quickly fix all of them (can be solved by preliminary preparations
> — searching for -fabric- usages in build configuration);
> 2. update all branches to master because otherwise old branch will
> stop building.
>
> WDYT?
>
>
>
> > On 7 Jun 2018, at 22:42, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >
> > Petr,
> >
> > Thanks for pulling up the conversation.
> >
> > I still prefer us not to complicate the things and just remove "fabric"
> > from the *package name*. Use the easiest way possible.
> >
> > Personally, I don't care about Hadoop and would not suggest the community
> > wasting its time on it. So, just rename the suffixes/prefixes of the
> build
> > files the way you like to address Anton's concerns.
> >
> > --
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:49 AM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> >
> >> Igniters,
> >>
> >>
> >> Lets define once again what should be done in this [1] task?
> >> If current implementation is good, than I’ll update it to master and
> pass
> >> for review.
> >>
> >> Yet, there is other part of the task which concerns our build server — I
> >> assume that almost all our build configurations will fail due to name
> >> change and there is no simple way of updating configurations other then
> >> merge task to master and start fixing failing builds.
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 10 Feb 2018, at 01:56, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >>>
>  I don't think we necessarily need to remove 'fabric' word from every
> >> file
>  in the project, we just need to rename the name of downloadable
> package.
> >>>
> >>> Couldn’t say it better than you, Val. Thanks for pitching in :) This is
> >> exactly what the ticket is about.
> >>>
> >>> —
> >>> Denis
> >>>
>  On Feb 9, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>  Anton,
> 
>  I don't think we necessarily need to remove 'fabric' word from every
> >> file
>  in the project, we just need to rename the name of downloadable
> >> package. Is
>  there any other place where 'fabric' is exposed to the user?
> 
>  If that's the case, it should not be a big change, no?
> 
>  -Val
> 
>  On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:49 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> >> avinogra...@gridgain.com>
>  wrote:
> 
> > Denis,
> >
> > You're proposing changes without viewing a code :)
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Denis Magda 
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> Anton,
> >>
> >> What’s wrong if we just go ahead and:
> >> - replace “fabric” with “ignite”
> >> - replace “hadoop” with “ignite-hadoop"
> >>
> >> —
> >> Denis
> >>
> >>> On Feb 8, 2018, at 1:51 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> >> avinogra...@gridgain.com
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Denis,
> >>>
> >>> "hadoop" and "fabric" words work on same engine.
> >>>
> >>> We have special assembly desctiptors, for example:
> >>> dependencies-fabric.xml
> >>> dependencies-fabric-lgpl.xml
> >>> dependencies-hadoop.xml
> >>> release-base.xml
> >>> release-fabric.xml
> >>> release-fabric-base.xml
> >>> release-fabric-lgpl.xml
> >>> release-hadoop.xml
> >>>
> >>> So, I'ts impossible for now to remove "fabric" without "hadoop"
> > removal.
> >>> Only one case is to make some ditry hack, but that's not a good
> idea.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Sergey Kozlov <
> skoz...@gridgain.com
> >>>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
>  +1 hadoop accelerator removing for AI 2.5
> 
>  Also probably IGFS should be either removed or refactored, e.g.
> >> create
> >> FS
>  directly over the data region without using "cache" entity as an
>  intermidiate stage
> 
>  On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:13 AM, Denis Magda 
> > wrote:
> 
> > Anton,
> >
> > I don’t get how the hadoop editions are related to this task. The
> >> project
> > is not named as “data fabric” for a while. Check up the site or
> >> docs.
> >
> > The “fabric” word is being removed from all over the places and
> >> needs
> >> to
> > be removed from the editions’ names.
> >
> 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Petr Ivanov]

Igniters,


Lets define once again what should be done in this [1] task?
If current implementation is good, than I’ll update it to master and pass for 
review.

Yet, there is other part of the task which concerns our build server — I assume 
that almost all our build configurations will fail due to name change and there 
is no simple way of updating configurations other then merge task to master and 
start fixing failing builds.


[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251



> On 10 Feb 2018, at 01:56, Denis Magda  wrote:
> 
>> I don't think we necessarily need to remove 'fabric' word from every file
>> in the project, we just need to rename the name of downloadable package.
> 
> Couldn’t say it better than you, Val. Thanks for pitching in :) This is 
> exactly what the ticket is about.
> 
> —
> Denis
> 
>> On Feb 9, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Valentin Kulichenko 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Anton,
>> 
>> I don't think we necessarily need to remove 'fabric' word from every file
>> in the project, we just need to rename the name of downloadable package. Is
>> there any other place where 'fabric' is exposed to the user?
>> 
>> If that's the case, it should not be a big change, no?
>> 
>> -Val
>> 
>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:49 AM, Anton Vinogradov 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Denis,
>>> 
>>> You're proposing changes without viewing a code :)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>>> 
 Anton,
 
 What’s wrong if we just go ahead and:
 - replace “fabric” with “ignite”
 - replace “hadoop” with “ignite-hadoop"
 
 —
 Denis
 
> On Feb 8, 2018, at 1:51 AM, Anton Vinogradov >>> 
 wrote:
> 
> Denis,
> 
> "hadoop" and "fabric" words work on same engine.
> 
> We have special assembly desctiptors, for example:
> dependencies-fabric.xml
> dependencies-fabric-lgpl.xml
> dependencies-hadoop.xml
> release-base.xml
> release-fabric.xml
> release-fabric-base.xml
> release-fabric-lgpl.xml
> release-hadoop.xml
> 
> So, I'ts impossible for now to remove "fabric" without "hadoop"
>>> removal.
> Only one case is to make some ditry hack, but that's not a good idea.
> 
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Sergey Kozlov 
 wrote:
> 
>> +1 hadoop accelerator removing for AI 2.5
>> 
>> Also probably IGFS should be either removed or refactored, e.g. create
 FS
>> directly over the data region without using "cache" entity as an
>> intermidiate stage
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:13 AM, Denis Magda 
>>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Anton,
>>> 
>>> I don’t get how the hadoop editions are related to this task. The
 project
>>> is not named as “data fabric” for a while. Check up the site or docs.
>>> 
>>> The “fabric” word is being removed from all over the places and needs
 to
>>> be removed from the editions’ names.
>>> 
>>> As for the hadoop future, my personal position is to retire this
>> component
>>> and forget about it. I would restart the conversation again after we
 done
>>> with 2.4.
>>> 
>>> —
>>> Denis
>>> 
 On Feb 7, 2018, at 2:13 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
 
 Denis, Petr,
 
 I checked PR and found we have *overcomplicated* logic with "fabric"
>> and
 "hadoop" postfixs.
 
 Do we really need to assembly 2 editions?
 "Hadoop" edition still valued?
 
 My proposal is to get rid of "hadoop" edition and replace it with
 instruction of how to use "fabric" edition instead.
 Instruction will be pretty easy -> move "hadoop" folder from
 "optional"
>>> to
 root directory :)
 
 In that case we can just remove all postfix logic from maven poms
>>> and
 simplify release process.
 
 On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Denis Magda 
>> wrote:
 
> Petr, thanks for solving it!
> 
> Hope that Anton V. or some other build master will double-check the
> changes and merge them.
> 
> —
> Denis
> 
>> On Dec 28, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Petr Ivanov 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> IGNITE-7251 is done, needs review and some additional tests. See
>>> PR
> #3315 [1].
>> 
>> 
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315 <
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 20 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Denis Magda  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Petr, thanks, such a swift turnaround!
>>> 
>>> Have you found the one who can asses and review the changes?
>>> 
>>> Maintainers label might be helpful. Just ping them directly:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers <
> 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Denis Magda]

> I don't think we necessarily need to remove 'fabric' word from every file
> in the project, we just need to rename the name of downloadable package.

Couldn’t say it better than you, Val. Thanks for pitching in :) This is exactly 
what the ticket is about.

—
Denis

> On Feb 9, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Valentin Kulichenko 
>  wrote:
> 
> Anton,
> 
> I don't think we necessarily need to remove 'fabric' word from every file
> in the project, we just need to rename the name of downloadable package. Is
> there any other place where 'fabric' is exposed to the user?
> 
> If that's the case, it should not be a big change, no?
> 
> -Val
> 
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:49 AM, Anton Vinogradov 
> wrote:
> 
>> Denis,
>> 
>> You're proposing changes without viewing a code :)
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>> 
>>> Anton,
>>> 
>>> What’s wrong if we just go ahead and:
>>> - replace “fabric” with “ignite”
>>> - replace “hadoop” with “ignite-hadoop"
>>> 
>>> —
>>> Denis
>>> 
 On Feb 8, 2018, at 1:51 AM, Anton Vinogradov >> 
>>> wrote:
 
 Denis,
 
 "hadoop" and "fabric" words work on same engine.
 
 We have special assembly desctiptors, for example:
 dependencies-fabric.xml
 dependencies-fabric-lgpl.xml
 dependencies-hadoop.xml
 release-base.xml
 release-fabric.xml
 release-fabric-base.xml
 release-fabric-lgpl.xml
 release-hadoop.xml
 
 So, I'ts impossible for now to remove "fabric" without "hadoop"
>> removal.
 Only one case is to make some ditry hack, but that's not a good idea.
 
 On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Sergey Kozlov 
>>> wrote:
 
> +1 hadoop accelerator removing for AI 2.5
> 
> Also probably IGFS should be either removed or refactored, e.g. create
>>> FS
> directly over the data region without using "cache" entity as an
> intermidiate stage
> 
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:13 AM, Denis Magda 
>> wrote:
> 
>> Anton,
>> 
>> I don’t get how the hadoop editions are related to this task. The
>>> project
>> is not named as “data fabric” for a while. Check up the site or docs.
>> 
>> The “fabric” word is being removed from all over the places and needs
>>> to
>> be removed from the editions’ names.
>> 
>> As for the hadoop future, my personal position is to retire this
> component
>> and forget about it. I would restart the conversation again after we
>>> done
>> with 2.4.
>> 
>> —
>> Denis
>> 
>>> On Feb 7, 2018, at 2:13 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Denis, Petr,
>>> 
>>> I checked PR and found we have *overcomplicated* logic with "fabric"
> and
>>> "hadoop" postfixs.
>>> 
>>> Do we really need to assembly 2 editions?
>>> "Hadoop" edition still valued?
>>> 
>>> My proposal is to get rid of "hadoop" edition and replace it with
>>> instruction of how to use "fabric" edition instead.
>>> Instruction will be pretty easy -> move "hadoop" folder from
>>> "optional"
>> to
>>> root directory :)
>>> 
>>> In that case we can just remove all postfix logic from maven poms
>> and
>>> simplify release process.
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Denis Magda 
> wrote:
>>> 
 Petr, thanks for solving it!
 
 Hope that Anton V. or some other build master will double-check the
 changes and merge them.
 
 —
 Denis
 
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Petr Ivanov 
> wrote:
> 
> IGNITE-7251 is done, needs review and some additional tests. See
>> PR
 #3315 [1].
> 
> 
> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315 <
 https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315>
> 
> 
> 
>> On 20 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Denis Magda  wrote:
>> 
>> Petr, thanks, such a swift turnaround!
>> 
>> Have you found the one who can asses and review the changes?
>> 
>> Maintainers label might be helpful. Just ping them directly:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
 to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers <
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
 to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers>
>> 
>> 
>> —
>> Denis
>> 
>>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 12:24 AM, Petr Ivanov 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Assigned myself — done the same work while preparing RPM
>> package.
>>> But for fixing DEVNOTES.txt waiting for review and merge of
 IGNITE-7107 [1].
>>> 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Valentin Kulichenko]

Anton,

I don't think we necessarily need to remove 'fabric' word from every file
in the project, we just need to rename the name of downloadable package. Is
there any other place where 'fabric' is exposed to the user?

If that's the case, it should not be a big change, no?

-Val

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:49 AM, Anton Vinogradov 
wrote:

> Denis,
>
> You're proposing changes without viewing a code :)
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>
> > Anton,
> >
> > What’s wrong if we just go ahead and:
> > - replace “fabric” with “ignite”
> > - replace “hadoop” with “ignite-hadoop"
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
> > > On Feb 8, 2018, at 1:51 AM, Anton Vinogradov  >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Denis,
> > >
> > > "hadoop" and "fabric" words work on same engine.
> > >
> > > We have special assembly desctiptors, for example:
> > > dependencies-fabric.xml
> > > dependencies-fabric-lgpl.xml
> > > dependencies-hadoop.xml
> > > release-base.xml
> > > release-fabric.xml
> > > release-fabric-base.xml
> > > release-fabric-lgpl.xml
> > > release-hadoop.xml
> > >
> > > So, I'ts impossible for now to remove "fabric" without "hadoop"
> removal.
> > > Only one case is to make some ditry hack, but that's not a good idea.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Sergey Kozlov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1 hadoop accelerator removing for AI 2.5
> > >>
> > >> Also probably IGFS should be either removed or refactored, e.g. create
> > FS
> > >> directly over the data region without using "cache" entity as an
> > >> intermidiate stage
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:13 AM, Denis Magda 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Anton,
> > >>>
> > >>> I don’t get how the hadoop editions are related to this task. The
> > project
> > >>> is not named as “data fabric” for a while. Check up the site or docs.
> > >>>
> > >>> The “fabric” word is being removed from all over the places and needs
> > to
> > >>> be removed from the editions’ names.
> > >>>
> > >>> As for the hadoop future, my personal position is to retire this
> > >> component
> > >>> and forget about it. I would restart the conversation again after we
> > done
> > >>> with 2.4.
> > >>>
> > >>> —
> > >>> Denis
> > >>>
> >  On Feb 7, 2018, at 2:13 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> > 
> >  Denis, Petr,
> > 
> >  I checked PR and found we have *overcomplicated* logic with "fabric"
> > >> and
> >  "hadoop" postfixs.
> > 
> >  Do we really need to assembly 2 editions?
> >  "Hadoop" edition still valued?
> > 
> >  My proposal is to get rid of "hadoop" edition and replace it with
> >  instruction of how to use "fabric" edition instead.
> >  Instruction will be pretty easy -> move "hadoop" folder from
> > "optional"
> > >>> to
> >  root directory :)
> > 
> >  In that case we can just remove all postfix logic from maven poms
> and
> >  simplify release process.
> > 
> >  On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Denis Magda 
> > >> wrote:
> > 
> > > Petr, thanks for solving it!
> > >
> > > Hope that Anton V. or some other build master will double-check the
> > > changes and merge them.
> > >
> > > —
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >> On Dec 28, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Petr Ivanov 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> IGNITE-7251 is done, needs review and some additional tests. See
> PR
> > > #3315 [1].
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315 <
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On 20 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Denis Magda  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Petr, thanks, such a swift turnaround!
> > >>>
> > >>> Have you found the one who can asses and review the changes?
> > >>>
> > >>> Maintainers label might be helpful. Just ping them directly:
> > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > > to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers <
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > > to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> —
> > >>> Denis
> > >>>
> >  On Dec 20, 2017, at 12:24 AM, Petr Ivanov 
> > >>> wrote:
> > 
> >  Assigned myself — done the same work while preparing RPM
> package.
> >  But for fixing DEVNOTES.txt waiting for review and merge of
> > > IGNITE-7107 [1].
> > 
> > 
> >  [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7107
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > On 19 Dec 2017, at 22:55, Denis Magda 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > All the bids were accepted and the verdict is executed:
> > > 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Anton Vinogradov]

Denis,

You're proposing changes without viewing a code :)


On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:

> Anton,
>
> What’s wrong if we just go ahead and:
> - replace “fabric” with “ignite”
> - replace “hadoop” with “ignite-hadoop"
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Feb 8, 2018, at 1:51 AM, Anton Vinogradov 
> wrote:
> >
> > Denis,
> >
> > "hadoop" and "fabric" words work on same engine.
> >
> > We have special assembly desctiptors, for example:
> > dependencies-fabric.xml
> > dependencies-fabric-lgpl.xml
> > dependencies-hadoop.xml
> > release-base.xml
> > release-fabric.xml
> > release-fabric-base.xml
> > release-fabric-lgpl.xml
> > release-hadoop.xml
> >
> > So, I'ts impossible for now to remove "fabric" without "hadoop" removal.
> > Only one case is to make some ditry hack, but that's not a good idea.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Sergey Kozlov 
> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 hadoop accelerator removing for AI 2.5
> >>
> >> Also probably IGFS should be either removed or refactored, e.g. create
> FS
> >> directly over the data region without using "cache" entity as an
> >> intermidiate stage
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:13 AM, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Anton,
> >>>
> >>> I don’t get how the hadoop editions are related to this task. The
> project
> >>> is not named as “data fabric” for a while. Check up the site or docs.
> >>>
> >>> The “fabric” word is being removed from all over the places and needs
> to
> >>> be removed from the editions’ names.
> >>>
> >>> As for the hadoop future, my personal position is to retire this
> >> component
> >>> and forget about it. I would restart the conversation again after we
> done
> >>> with 2.4.
> >>>
> >>> —
> >>> Denis
> >>>
>  On Feb 7, 2018, at 2:13 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> 
>  Denis, Petr,
> 
>  I checked PR and found we have *overcomplicated* logic with "fabric"
> >> and
>  "hadoop" postfixs.
> 
>  Do we really need to assembly 2 editions?
>  "Hadoop" edition still valued?
> 
>  My proposal is to get rid of "hadoop" edition and replace it with
>  instruction of how to use "fabric" edition instead.
>  Instruction will be pretty easy -> move "hadoop" folder from
> "optional"
> >>> to
>  root directory :)
> 
>  In that case we can just remove all postfix logic from maven poms and
>  simplify release process.
> 
>  On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Denis Magda 
> >> wrote:
> 
> > Petr, thanks for solving it!
> >
> > Hope that Anton V. or some other build master will double-check the
> > changes and merge them.
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
> >> On Dec 28, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Petr Ivanov 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> IGNITE-7251 is done, needs review and some additional tests. See PR
> > #3315 [1].
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315 <
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 20 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Petr, thanks, such a swift turnaround!
> >>>
> >>> Have you found the one who can asses and review the changes?
> >>>
> >>> Maintainers label might be helpful. Just ping them directly:
> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers <
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> —
> >>> Denis
> >>>
>  On Dec 20, 2017, at 12:24 AM, Petr Ivanov 
> >>> wrote:
> 
>  Assigned myself — done the same work while preparing RPM package.
>  But for fixing DEVNOTES.txt waiting for review and merge of
> > IGNITE-7107 [1].
> 
> 
>  [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7107
> 
> 
> 
> > On 19 Dec 2017, at 22:55, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >
> > All the bids were accepted and the verdict is executed:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251 <
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251>
> >
> > Who is ready to pick this up?
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
> >> On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:35 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> > avinogra...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1б фо шур
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > voze...@gridgain.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1б вуаштшеудн
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
>  +1
> 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Denis Magda]

Anton,

What’s wrong if we just go ahead and:
- replace “fabric” with “ignite”
- replace “hadoop” with “ignite-hadoop"

—
Denis

> On Feb 8, 2018, at 1:51 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> 
> Denis,
> 
> "hadoop" and "fabric" words work on same engine.
> 
> We have special assembly desctiptors, for example:
> dependencies-fabric.xml
> dependencies-fabric-lgpl.xml
> dependencies-hadoop.xml
> release-base.xml
> release-fabric.xml
> release-fabric-base.xml
> release-fabric-lgpl.xml
> release-hadoop.xml
> 
> So, I'ts impossible for now to remove "fabric" without "hadoop" removal.
> Only one case is to make some ditry hack, but that's not a good idea.
> 
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Sergey Kozlov  wrote:
> 
>> +1 hadoop accelerator removing for AI 2.5
>> 
>> Also probably IGFS should be either removed or refactored, e.g. create FS
>> directly over the data region without using "cache" entity as an
>> intermidiate stage
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:13 AM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>> 
>>> Anton,
>>> 
>>> I don’t get how the hadoop editions are related to this task. The project
>>> is not named as “data fabric” for a while. Check up the site or docs.
>>> 
>>> The “fabric” word is being removed from all over the places and needs to
>>> be removed from the editions’ names.
>>> 
>>> As for the hadoop future, my personal position is to retire this
>> component
>>> and forget about it. I would restart the conversation again after we done
>>> with 2.4.
>>> 
>>> —
>>> Denis
>>> 
 On Feb 7, 2018, at 2:13 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
 
 Denis, Petr,
 
 I checked PR and found we have *overcomplicated* logic with "fabric"
>> and
 "hadoop" postfixs.
 
 Do we really need to assembly 2 editions?
 "Hadoop" edition still valued?
 
 My proposal is to get rid of "hadoop" edition and replace it with
 instruction of how to use "fabric" edition instead.
 Instruction will be pretty easy -> move "hadoop" folder from "optional"
>>> to
 root directory :)
 
 In that case we can just remove all postfix logic from maven poms and
 simplify release process.
 
 On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Denis Magda 
>> wrote:
 
> Petr, thanks for solving it!
> 
> Hope that Anton V. or some other build master will double-check the
> changes and merge them.
> 
> —
> Denis
> 
>> On Dec 28, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Petr Ivanov 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> IGNITE-7251 is done, needs review and some additional tests. See PR
> #3315 [1].
>> 
>> 
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315 <
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 20 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Denis Magda  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Petr, thanks, such a swift turnaround!
>>> 
>>> Have you found the one who can asses and review the changes?
>>> 
>>> Maintainers label might be helpful. Just ping them directly:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> —
>>> Denis
>>> 
 On Dec 20, 2017, at 12:24 AM, Petr Ivanov 
>>> wrote:
 
 Assigned myself — done the same work while preparing RPM package.
 But for fixing DEVNOTES.txt waiting for review and merge of
> IGNITE-7107 [1].
 
 
 [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7107
 
 
 
> On 19 Dec 2017, at 22:55, Denis Magda  wrote:
> 
> All the bids were accepted and the verdict is executed:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251>
> 
> Who is ready to pick this up?
> 
> —
> Denis
> 
>> On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:35 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> avinogra...@gridgain.com> wrote:
>> 
>> +1б фо шур
>> 
>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> voze...@gridgain.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1б вуаштшеудн
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
 +1
 
 On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>> dsetrak...@apache.org
> 
 wrote:
 
> +1 (completely agree)
> 
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Denis Magda <
>>> dma...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
> 
>> Igniters,
>> 
>> Apache 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Anton Vinogradov]

Denis,

"hadoop" and "fabric" words work on same engine.

We have special assembly desctiptors, for example:
dependencies-fabric.xml
dependencies-fabric-lgpl.xml
dependencies-hadoop.xml
release-base.xml
release-fabric.xml
release-fabric-base.xml
release-fabric-lgpl.xml
release-hadoop.xml

So, I'ts impossible for now to remove "fabric" without "hadoop" removal.
Only one case is to make some ditry hack, but that's not a good idea.

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Sergey Kozlov  wrote:

> +1 hadoop accelerator removing for AI 2.5
>
> Also probably IGFS should be either removed or refactored, e.g. create FS
> directly over the data region without using "cache" entity as an
> intermidiate stage
>
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:13 AM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>
> > Anton,
> >
> > I don’t get how the hadoop editions are related to this task. The project
> > is not named as “data fabric” for a while. Check up the site or docs.
> >
> > The “fabric” word is being removed from all over the places and needs to
> > be removed from the editions’ names.
> >
> > As for the hadoop future, my personal position is to retire this
> component
> > and forget about it. I would restart the conversation again after we done
> > with 2.4.
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
> > > On Feb 7, 2018, at 2:13 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> > >
> > > Denis, Petr,
> > >
> > > I checked PR and found we have *overcomplicated* logic with "fabric"
> and
> > > "hadoop" postfixs.
> > >
> > > Do we really need to assembly 2 editions?
> > > "Hadoop" edition still valued?
> > >
> > > My proposal is to get rid of "hadoop" edition and replace it with
> > > instruction of how to use "fabric" edition instead.
> > > Instruction will be pretty easy -> move "hadoop" folder from "optional"
> > to
> > > root directory :)
> > >
> > > In that case we can just remove all postfix logic from maven poms and
> > > simplify release process.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Denis Magda 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Petr, thanks for solving it!
> > >>
> > >> Hope that Anton V. or some other build master will double-check the
> > >> changes and merge them.
> > >>
> > >> —
> > >> Denis
> > >>
> > >>> On Dec 28, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Petr Ivanov 
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> IGNITE-7251 is done, needs review and some additional tests. See PR
> > >> #3315 [1].
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315 <
> > >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >  On 20 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Denis Magda  wrote:
> > 
> >  Petr, thanks, such a swift turnaround!
> > 
> >  Have you found the one who can asses and review the changes?
> > 
> >  Maintainers label might be helpful. Just ping them directly:
> >  https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > >> to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers <
> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > >> to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers>
> > 
> > 
> >  —
> >  Denis
> > 
> > > On Dec 20, 2017, at 12:24 AM, Petr Ivanov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Assigned myself — done the same work while preparing RPM package.
> > > But for fixing DEVNOTES.txt waiting for review and merge of
> > >> IGNITE-7107 [1].
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7107
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 19 Dec 2017, at 22:55, Denis Magda  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> All the bids were accepted and the verdict is executed:
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251 <
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251>
> > >>
> > >> Who is ready to pick this up?
> > >>
> > >> —
> > >> Denis
> > >>
> > >>> On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:35 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> > >> avinogra...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> +1б фо шур
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > >> voze...@gridgain.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  +1б вуаштшеудн
> > 
> >  On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >  valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >  dsetrak...@apache.org
> > >>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1 (completely agree)
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Denis Magda <
> > dma...@apache.org>
> >  wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Igniters,
> > >>>
> > >>> Apache Ignite binary releases still include “fabric” word in
> > >> their
> > > names:
> > >>> https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries <
> > >>> 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Sergey Kozlov]

+1 hadoop accelerator removing for AI 2.5

Also probably IGFS should be either removed or refactored, e.g. create FS
directly over the data region without using "cache" entity as an
intermidiate stage

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:13 AM, Denis Magda  wrote:

> Anton,
>
> I don’t get how the hadoop editions are related to this task. The project
> is not named as “data fabric” for a while. Check up the site or docs.
>
> The “fabric” word is being removed from all over the places and needs to
> be removed from the editions’ names.
>
> As for the hadoop future, my personal position is to retire this component
> and forget about it. I would restart the conversation again after we done
> with 2.4.
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Feb 7, 2018, at 2:13 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> >
> > Denis, Petr,
> >
> > I checked PR and found we have *overcomplicated* logic with "fabric" and
> > "hadoop" postfixs.
> >
> > Do we really need to assembly 2 editions?
> > "Hadoop" edition still valued?
> >
> > My proposal is to get rid of "hadoop" edition and replace it with
> > instruction of how to use "fabric" edition instead.
> > Instruction will be pretty easy -> move "hadoop" folder from "optional"
> to
> > root directory :)
> >
> > In that case we can just remove all postfix logic from maven poms and
> > simplify release process.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >
> >> Petr, thanks for solving it!
> >>
> >> Hope that Anton V. or some other build master will double-check the
> >> changes and merge them.
> >>
> >> —
> >> Denis
> >>
> >>> On Dec 28, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> IGNITE-7251 is done, needs review and some additional tests. See PR
> >> #3315 [1].
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315 <
> >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>  On 20 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Denis Magda  wrote:
> 
>  Petr, thanks, such a swift turnaround!
> 
>  Have you found the one who can asses and review the changes?
> 
>  Maintainers label might be helpful. Just ping them directly:
>  https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> >> to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers <
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> >> to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers>
> 
> 
>  —
>  Denis
> 
> > On Dec 20, 2017, at 12:24 AM, Petr Ivanov 
> wrote:
> >
> > Assigned myself — done the same work while preparing RPM package.
> > But for fixing DEVNOTES.txt waiting for review and merge of
> >> IGNITE-7107 [1].
> >
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7107
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 19 Dec 2017, at 22:55, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >>
> >> All the bids were accepted and the verdict is executed:
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251 <
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251>
> >>
> >> Who is ready to pick this up?
> >>
> >> —
> >> Denis
> >>
> >>> On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:35 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> >> avinogra...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> +1б фо шур
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> >> voze...@gridgain.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  +1б вуаштшеудн
> 
>  On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>  valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > +1
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>  dsetrak...@apache.org
> >>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1 (completely agree)
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Denis Magda <
> dma...@apache.org>
>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Igniters,
> >>>
> >>> Apache Ignite binary releases still include “fabric” word in
> >> their
> > names:
> >>> https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries <
> >>> https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries>
> >>>
> >>> For instance, this is a full name of the previous release -
> >>> apache-ignite-fabric-2.3.0-bin.
> >>> It’s a little oversight on our side because the project has not
> >> been
> >>> positioned as a fabric for a while.
> >>>
> >>> Proposal! Remove “fabric” from the name and have the binary
> >> releases
> >> named
> >>> as - apache-ignite-{version}-bin.
> >>>
> >>> If we’re in consensus then let’s make the change in 2.4.
> >>>
> >>> —
> >>> Denis
> >>>
> >>
> >
> 
> >>
> >
> 
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>


-- 
Sergey Kozlov
GridGain Systems
www.gridgain.com

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Denis Magda]

Anton,

I don’t get how the hadoop editions are related to this task. The project is 
not named as “data fabric” for a while. Check up the site or docs.

The “fabric” word is being removed from all over the places and needs to be 
removed from the editions’ names.

As for the hadoop future, my personal position is to retire this component and 
forget about it. I would restart the conversation again after we done with 2.4.

—
Denis

> On Feb 7, 2018, at 2:13 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
> 
> Denis, Petr,
> 
> I checked PR and found we have *overcomplicated* logic with "fabric" and
> "hadoop" postfixs.
> 
> Do we really need to assembly 2 editions?
> "Hadoop" edition still valued?
> 
> My proposal is to get rid of "hadoop" edition and replace it with
> instruction of how to use "fabric" edition instead.
> Instruction will be pretty easy -> move "hadoop" folder from "optional" to
> root directory :)
> 
> In that case we can just remove all postfix logic from maven poms and
> simplify release process.
> 
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
> 
>> Petr, thanks for solving it!
>> 
>> Hope that Anton V. or some other build master will double-check the
>> changes and merge them.
>> 
>> —
>> Denis
>> 
>>> On Dec 28, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
>>> 
>>> IGNITE-7251 is done, needs review and some additional tests. See PR
>> #3315 [1].
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315 <
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On 20 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Denis Magda  wrote:
 
 Petr, thanks, such a swift turnaround!
 
 Have you found the one who can asses and review the changes?
 
 Maintainers label might be helpful. Just ping them directly:
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
>> to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers <
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
>> to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers>
 
 
 —
 Denis
 
> On Dec 20, 2017, at 12:24 AM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> 
> Assigned myself — done the same work while preparing RPM package.
> But for fixing DEVNOTES.txt waiting for review and merge of
>> IGNITE-7107 [1].
> 
> 
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7107
> 
> 
> 
>> On 19 Dec 2017, at 22:55, Denis Magda  wrote:
>> 
>> All the bids were accepted and the verdict is executed:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251 <
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251>
>> 
>> Who is ready to pick this up?
>> 
>> —
>> Denis
>> 
>>> On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:35 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
>> avinogra...@gridgain.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> +1б фо шур
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
>> voze...@gridgain.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 +1б вуаштшеудн
 
 On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
 valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
> +1
> 
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
 dsetrak...@apache.org
>> 
> wrote:
> 
>> +1 (completely agree)
>> 
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Denis Magda 
 wrote:
>> 
>>> Igniters,
>>> 
>>> Apache Ignite binary releases still include “fabric” word in
>> their
> names:
>>> https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries <
>>> https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries>
>>> 
>>> For instance, this is a full name of the previous release -
>>> apache-ignite-fabric-2.3.0-bin.
>>> It’s a little oversight on our side because the project has not
>> been
>>> positioned as a fabric for a while.
>>> 
>>> Proposal! Remove “fabric” from the name and have the binary
>> releases
>> named
>>> as - apache-ignite-{version}-bin.
>>> 
>>> If we’re in consensus then let’s make the change in 2.4.
>>> 
>>> —
>>> Denis
>>> 
>> 
> 
 
>> 
> 
 
>>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Valentin Kulichenko]

Anton,

We already had a discussion about this:
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ignite-spark-module-in-Hadoop-Accelerator-td12343.html

While I'm personally very much for getting rid of two separate editions, we
didn't come to consensus there.

-Val

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 2:13 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:

> Denis, Petr,
>
> I checked PR and found we have *overcomplicated* logic with "fabric" and
> "hadoop" postfixs.
>
> Do we really need to assembly 2 editions?
> "Hadoop" edition still valued?
>
> My proposal is to get rid of "hadoop" edition and replace it with
> instruction of how to use "fabric" edition instead.
> Instruction will be pretty easy -> move "hadoop" folder from "optional" to
> root directory :)
>
> In that case we can just remove all postfix logic from maven poms and
> simplify release process.
>
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>
> > Petr, thanks for solving it!
> >
> > Hope that Anton V. or some other build master will double-check the
> > changes and merge them.
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
> > > On Dec 28, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> > >
> > > IGNITE-7251 is done, needs review and some additional tests. See PR
> > #3315 [1].
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315 <
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 20 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Denis Magda  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Petr, thanks, such a swift turnaround!
> > >>
> > >> Have you found the one who can asses and review the changes?
> > >>
> > >> Maintainers label might be helpful. Just ping them directly:
> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers <
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> —
> > >> Denis
> > >>
> > >>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 12:24 AM, Petr Ivanov 
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Assigned myself — done the same work while preparing RPM package.
> > >>> But for fixing DEVNOTES.txt waiting for review and merge of
> > IGNITE-7107 [1].
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7107
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >  On 19 Dec 2017, at 22:55, Denis Magda  wrote:
> > 
> >  All the bids were accepted and the verdict is executed:
> >  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251 <
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251>
> > 
> >  Who is ready to pick this up?
> > 
> >  —
> >  Denis
> > 
> > > On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:35 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> > avinogra...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1б фо шур
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > voze...@gridgain.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1б вуаштшеудн
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> +1
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > >> dsetrak...@apache.org
> > 
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  +1 (completely agree)
> > 
> >  On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Denis Magda <
> dma...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > 
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > Apache Ignite binary releases still include “fabric” word in
> > their
> > >>> names:
> > > https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries <
> > > https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries>
> > >
> > > For instance, this is a full name of the previous release -
> > > apache-ignite-fabric-2.3.0-bin.
> > > It’s a little oversight on our side because the project has not
> > been
> > > positioned as a fabric for a while.
> > >
> > > Proposal! Remove “fabric” from the name and have the binary
> > releases
> >  named
> > > as - apache-ignite-{version}-bin.
> > >
> > > If we’re in consensus then let’s make the change in 2.4.
> > >
> > > —
> > > Denis
> > >
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Anton Vinogradov]

Denis, Petr,

I checked PR and found we have *overcomplicated* logic with "fabric" and
"hadoop" postfixs.

Do we really need to assembly 2 editions?
"Hadoop" edition still valued?

My proposal is to get rid of "hadoop" edition and replace it with
instruction of how to use "fabric" edition instead.
Instruction will be pretty easy -> move "hadoop" folder from "optional" to
root directory :)

In that case we can just remove all postfix logic from maven poms and
simplify release process.

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:

> Petr, thanks for solving it!
>
> Hope that Anton V. or some other build master will double-check the
> changes and merge them.
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Dec 28, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> >
> > IGNITE-7251 is done, needs review and some additional tests. See PR
> #3315 [1].
> >
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315 <
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315>
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 20 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >>
> >> Petr, thanks, such a swift turnaround!
> >>
> >> Have you found the one who can asses and review the changes?
> >>
> >> Maintainers label might be helpful. Just ping them directly:
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers>
> >>
> >>
> >> —
> >> Denis
> >>
> >>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 12:24 AM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Assigned myself — done the same work while preparing RPM package.
> >>> But for fixing DEVNOTES.txt waiting for review and merge of
> IGNITE-7107 [1].
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7107
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>  On 19 Dec 2017, at 22:55, Denis Magda  wrote:
> 
>  All the bids were accepted and the verdict is executed:
>  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251>
> 
>  Who is ready to pick this up?
> 
>  —
>  Denis
> 
> > On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:35 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> avinogra...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1б фо шур
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> voze...@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1б вуаштшеудн
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >> dsetrak...@apache.org
> 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  +1 (completely agree)
> 
>  On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Denis Magda 
> >> wrote:
> 
> > Igniters,
> >
> > Apache Ignite binary releases still include “fabric” word in
> their
> >>> names:
> > https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries <
> > https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries>
> >
> > For instance, this is a full name of the previous release -
> > apache-ignite-fabric-2.3.0-bin.
> > It’s a little oversight on our side because the project has not
> been
> > positioned as a fabric for a while.
> >
> > Proposal! Remove “fabric” from the name and have the binary
> releases
>  named
> > as - apache-ignite-{version}-bin.
> >
> > If we’re in consensus then let’s make the change in 2.4.
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
> 
> >>>
> >>
> 
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Denis Magda]

Petr, thanks for solving it!

Hope that Anton V. or some other build master will double-check the changes and 
merge them.

—
Denis

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> 
> IGNITE-7251 is done, needs review and some additional tests. See PR #3315 [1].
> 
> 
> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 20 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Denis Magda  wrote:
>> 
>> Petr, thanks, such a swift turnaround! 
>> 
>> Have you found the one who can asses and review the changes?
>> 
>> Maintainers label might be helpful. Just ping them directly:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> —
>> Denis
>> 
>>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 12:24 AM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Assigned myself — done the same work while preparing RPM package.
>>> But for fixing DEVNOTES.txt waiting for review and merge of IGNITE-7107 [1].
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7107
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On 19 Dec 2017, at 22:55, Denis Magda  wrote:
 
 All the bids were accepted and the verdict is executed:
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251 
 
 
 Who is ready to pick this up?
 
 —
 Denis
 
> On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:35 AM, Anton Vinogradov  
> wrote:
> 
> +1б фо шур
> 
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
> wrote:
> 
>> +1б вуаштшеудн
>> 
>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> dsetrak...@apache.org
 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 +1 (completely agree)
 
 On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Denis Magda 
>> wrote:
 
> Igniters,
> 
> Apache Ignite binary releases still include “fabric” word in their
>>> names:
> https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries <
> https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries>
> 
> For instance, this is a full name of the previous release -
> apache-ignite-fabric-2.3.0-bin.
> It’s a little oversight on our side because the project has not been
> positioned as a fabric for a while.
> 
> Proposal! Remove “fabric” from the name and have the binary releases
 named
> as - apache-ignite-{version}-bin.
> 
> If we’re in consensus then let’s make the change in 2.4.
> 
> —
> Denis
> 
 
>>> 
>> 
 
>>> 
>> 
> 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Petr Ivanov]

IGNITE-7251 is done, needs review and some additional tests. See PR #3315 [1].


[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3315 




> On 20 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Denis Magda  wrote:
> 
> Petr, thanks, such a swift turnaround! 
> 
> Have you found the one who can asses and review the changes?
> 
> Maintainers label might be helpful. Just ping them directly:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers
>  
> 
> 
> 
> —
> Denis
> 
>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 12:24 AM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
>> 
>> Assigned myself — done the same work while preparing RPM package.
>> But for fixing DEVNOTES.txt waiting for review and merge of IGNITE-7107 [1].
>> 
>> 
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7107
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 19 Dec 2017, at 22:55, Denis Magda  wrote:
>>> 
>>> All the bids were accepted and the verdict is executed:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Who is ready to pick this up?
>>> 
>>> —
>>> Denis
>>> 
 On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:35 AM, Anton Vinogradov  
 wrote:
 
 +1б фо шур
 
 On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
 wrote:
 
> +1б вуаштшеудн
> 
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> +1
>> 
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org
>>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1 (completely agree)
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Denis Magda 
> wrote:
>>> 
 Igniters,
 
 Apache Ignite binary releases still include “fabric” word in their
>> names:
 https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries <
 https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries>
 
 For instance, this is a full name of the previous release -
 apache-ignite-fabric-2.3.0-bin.
 It’s a little oversight on our side because the project has not been
 positioned as a fabric for a while.
 
 Proposal! Remove “fabric” from the name and have the binary releases
>>> named
 as - apache-ignite-{version}-bin.
 
 If we’re in consensus then let’s make the change in 2.4.
 
 —
 Denis
 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
>> 
> 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Denis Magda]

Petr, thanks, such a swift turnaround! 

Have you found the one who can asses and review the changes?

Maintainers label might be helpful. Just ping them directly:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewProcessandMaintainers
 



—
Denis

> On Dec 20, 2017, at 12:24 AM, Petr Ivanov  wrote:
> 
> Assigned myself — done the same work while preparing RPM package.
> But for fixing DEVNOTES.txt waiting for review and merge of IGNITE-7107 [1].
> 
> 
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7107
> 
> 
> 
>> On 19 Dec 2017, at 22:55, Denis Magda  wrote:
>> 
>> All the bids were accepted and the verdict is executed:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251 
>> 
>> 
>> Who is ready to pick this up?
>> 
>> —
>> Denis
>> 
>>> On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:35 AM, Anton Vinogradov  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> +1б фо шур
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 +1б вуаштшеудн
 
 On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
 valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
> +1
> 
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
 dsetrak...@apache.org
>> 
> wrote:
> 
>> +1 (completely agree)
>> 
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Denis Magda 
 wrote:
>> 
>>> Igniters,
>>> 
>>> Apache Ignite binary releases still include “fabric” word in their
> names:
>>> https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries <
>>> https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries>
>>> 
>>> For instance, this is a full name of the previous release -
>>> apache-ignite-fabric-2.3.0-bin.
>>> It’s a little oversight on our side because the project has not been
>>> positioned as a fabric for a while.
>>> 
>>> Proposal! Remove “fabric” from the name and have the binary releases
>> named
>>> as - apache-ignite-{version}-bin.
>>> 
>>> If we’re in consensus then let’s make the change in 2.4.
>>> 
>>> —
>>> Denis
>>> 
>> 
> 
 
>> 
> 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Petr Ivanov]

Assigned myself — done the same work while preparing RPM package.
But for fixing DEVNOTES.txt waiting for review and merge of IGNITE-7107 [1].


[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7107



> On 19 Dec 2017, at 22:55, Denis Magda  wrote:
> 
> All the bids were accepted and the verdict is executed:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251 
> 
> 
> Who is ready to pick this up?
> 
> —
> Denis
> 
>> On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:35 AM, Anton Vinogradov  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> +1б фо шур
>> 
>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1б вуаштшеудн
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
 +1
 
 On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>>> dsetrak...@apache.org
> 
 wrote:
 
> +1 (completely agree)
> 
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Denis Magda 
>>> wrote:
> 
>> Igniters,
>> 
>> Apache Ignite binary releases still include “fabric” word in their
 names:
>> https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries <
>> https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries>
>> 
>> For instance, this is a full name of the previous release -
>> apache-ignite-fabric-2.3.0-bin.
>> It’s a little oversight on our side because the project has not been
>> positioned as a fabric for a while.
>> 
>> Proposal! Remove “fabric” from the name and have the binary releases
> named
>> as - apache-ignite-{version}-bin.
>> 
>> If we’re in consensus then let’s make the change in 2.4.
>> 
>> —
>> Denis
>> 
> 
 
>>> 
> 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Denis Magda]

All the bids were accepted and the verdict is executed:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7251 


Who is ready to pick this up?

—
Denis

> On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:35 AM, Anton Vinogradov  
> wrote:
> 
> +1б фо шур
> 
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
> wrote:
> 
>> +1б вуаштшеудн
>> 
>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> dsetrak...@apache.org
 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 +1 (completely agree)
 
 On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Denis Magda 
>> wrote:
 
> Igniters,
> 
> Apache Ignite binary releases still include “fabric” word in their
>>> names:
> https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries <
> https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries>
> 
> For instance, this is a full name of the previous release -
> apache-ignite-fabric-2.3.0-bin.
> It’s a little oversight on our side because the project has not been
> positioned as a fabric for a while.
> 
> Proposal! Remove “fabric” from the name and have the binary releases
 named
> as - apache-ignite-{version}-bin.
> 
> If we’re in consensus then let’s make the change in 2.4.
> 
> —
> Denis
> 
 
>>> 
>> 

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Anton Vinogradov]

+1б фо шур

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
wrote:

> +1б вуаштшеудн
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (completely agree)
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Denis Magda 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Igniters,
> > > >
> > > > Apache Ignite binary releases still include “fabric” word in their
> > names:
> > > > https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries <
> > > > https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries>
> > > >
> > > > For instance, this is a full name of the previous release -
> > > > apache-ignite-fabric-2.3.0-bin.
> > > > It’s a little oversight on our side because the project has not been
> > > > positioned as a fabric for a while.
> > > >
> > > > Proposal! Remove “fabric” from the name and have the binary releases
> > > named
> > > > as - apache-ignite-{version}-bin.
> > > >
> > > > If we’re in consensus then let’s make the change in 2.4.
> > > >
> > > > —
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Vladimir Ozerov]

+1, definitely

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Vladimir Ozerov 
wrote:

> +1б вуаштшеудн
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> dsetrak...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > +1 (completely agree)
>> >
>> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Denis Magda 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Igniters,
>> > >
>> > > Apache Ignite binary releases still include “fabric” word in their
>> names:
>> > > https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries <
>> > > https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries>
>> > >
>> > > For instance, this is a full name of the previous release -
>> > > apache-ignite-fabric-2.3.0-bin.
>> > > It’s a little oversight on our side because the project has not been
>> > > positioned as a fabric for a while.
>> > >
>> > > Proposal! Remove “fabric” from the name and have the binary releases
>> > named
>> > > as - apache-ignite-{version}-bin.
>> > >
>> > > If we’re in consensus then let’s make the change in 2.4.
>> > >
>> > > —
>> > > Denis
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Vladimir Ozerov]

+1б вуаштшеудн

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan  >
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (completely agree)
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > Apache Ignite binary releases still include “fabric” word in their
> names:
> > > https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries <
> > > https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries>
> > >
> > > For instance, this is a full name of the previous release -
> > > apache-ignite-fabric-2.3.0-bin.
> > > It’s a little oversight on our side because the project has not been
> > > positioned as a fabric for a while.
> > >
> > > Proposal! Remove “fabric” from the name and have the binary releases
> > named
> > > as - apache-ignite-{version}-bin.
> > >
> > > If we’re in consensus then let’s make the change in 2.4.
> > >
> > > —
> > > Denis
> > >
> >
>

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Valentin Kulichenko]

+1

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
wrote:

> +1 (completely agree)
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> > Apache Ignite binary releases still include “fabric” word in their names:
> > https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries <
> > https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries>
> >
> > For instance, this is a full name of the previous release -
> > apache-ignite-fabric-2.3.0-bin.
> > It’s a little oversight on our side because the project has not been
> > positioned as a fabric for a while.
> >
> > Proposal! Remove “fabric” from the name and have the binary releases
> named
> > as - apache-ignite-{version}-bin.
> >
> > If we’re in consensus then let’s make the change in 2.4.
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
>

Re: Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

+1 (completely agree)

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Denis Magda  wrote:

> Igniters,
>
> Apache Ignite binary releases still include “fabric” word in their names:
> https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries <
> https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries>
>
> For instance, this is a full name of the previous release -
> apache-ignite-fabric-2.3.0-bin.
> It’s a little oversight on our side because the project has not been
> positioned as a fabric for a while.
>
> Proposal! Remove “fabric” from the name and have the binary releases named
> as - apache-ignite-{version}-bin.
>
> If we’re in consensus then let’s make the change in 2.4.
>
> —
> Denis
>

Removing "fabric" from Ignite binary package name

[Denis Magda]

Igniters,

Apache Ignite binary releases still include “fabric” word in their names:
https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries 


For instance, this is a full name of the previous release - 
apache-ignite-fabric-2.3.0-bin.
It’s a little oversight on our side because the project has not been positioned 
as a fabric for a while.

Proposal! Remove “fabric” from the name and have the binary releases named as - 
apache-ignite-{version}-bin.

If we’re in consensus then let’s make the change in 2.4.

—
Denis