[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-1956) Portable object requires to have a class to get Enum field value

Valentin Kulichenko created IGNITE-1956: --- Summary: Portable object requires to have a class to get Enum field value Key: IGNITE-1956 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1956 Projec

Re: Ignite-1.5 Release

My update about portable micro-optimizations: - Distributed benchmarks didn't show any statistically significant difference between my branch and 1282, results are slightly better. I believe the only way to feel improvements in serialization is to create benchmark which loads CPU well. Ignite Y

Re: Ignite-1.5 Release

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Raul Kripalani wrote: > Can someone please clarify the *exact* release schedule? > > I hear that the merges may be completed tomorrow Friday, but the release > will be built next Friday. Is this correct? > > I'm finishing my work on the OSGi integration (three mo

Re: Ignite-1.5 Release

Can someone please clarify the *exact* release schedule? I hear that the merges may be completed tomorrow Friday, but the release will be built next Friday. Is this correct? I'm finishing my work on the OSGi integration (three modules), which I'd like to get into 1.5. I'm pretty much done, and I'

[GitHub] ignite pull request: Ignite 1510

GitHub user iveselovskiy opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/249 Ignite 1510 You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/iveselovskiy/ignite ignite-1510 Alternatively you can review and apply these c

Re: Ignite-1.5 Release

I've merged changes related to IGNITE-426 (Make sure continuous queries notifications are not missed in case primary node fails ) task. On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote: > Twitter intergration > *https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-530 >

[GitHub] ignite pull request: ignite-1955 ACCEPT_ALL predicate should have ...

GitHub user agura opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/248 ignite-1955 ACCEPT_ALL predicate should have SUID You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/agura/incubator-ignite ignite-1955 Alternativel

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-1955) ACCEPT_ALL predicate should have SUID

Andrey Gura created IGNITE-1955: --- Summary: ACCEPT_ALL predicate should have SUID Key: IGNITE-1955 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1955 Project: Ignite Issue Type: Bug

Re: Ignite camel streamer

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 3:51 AM, Raul Kripalani wrote: > Hi, > > I added the README.txt and the license.txt in commit > 480d457a724800c1afa4aadf3fc9ceda7f9a217f. > > For the record, you must not call something an "issue" and request "a fix" > when there was no requirement in the Wiki to begin wit

Re: Ignite-1.5 Release

Twitter intergration *https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-530 * is done too On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Semyon Boikov wrote: > Just merged single get optimizations (improvements in the last benchmarks > run: ~10% for atomic-put-get

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-1954) .Net: IIgnite.GetConfiguration

Pavel Tupitsyn created IGNITE-1954: --- Summary: .Net: IIgnite.GetConfiguration Key: IGNITE-1954 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1954 Project: Ignite Issue Type: Sub-task

Re: Ignite-1.5 Release

Just merged single get optimizations (improvements in the last benchmarks run: ~10% for atomic-put-get, ~5% for tx-put-get).

Re: Ignite-1.5 Release

Hey guys! We are getting closer to the release! Thanks to everyone making this closer! Let's update status info. My understanding is that the following major parts are still not merged. Can everyone mentioned provide ticket number(s) and estimates on when the functionality will be merged. 1. Da

Re: Javadoc warnings at Ignite 1.5

The culprit was just a single parenthesis in the Javadoc tag, Anton. StreamMultipleTupleExtractor*)* Anton, as I said, the code is not copyrighted by me. It belongs to the community. You are a committer and a PMC member in this project. Please just feel free to improve the code/docs whenever

Re: Javadoc warnings at Ignite 1.5

Raul, [10:19:42]W: [org.apache.ignite:ignite-camel] [WARNING] /home/teamcity/TeamCityAgent/work/1217c33bbef63537/incubator-ignite/modules/camel/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/stream/camel/CamelStreamer.java:51: warning - Tag @link: malformed: "StreamMultipleTupleExtractor)" [10:19:42]W: [org.apac

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-1953) PortableContext: rework ID mappers handling.

Vladimir Ozerov created IGNITE-1953: --- Summary: PortableContext: rework ID mappers handling. Key: IGNITE-1953 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1953 Project: Ignite Issue Typ

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-1952) Visorcmd: add a command for reset (clear) of metrics

Sergey Kozlov created IGNITE-1952: - Summary: Visorcmd: add a command for reset (clear) of metrics Key: IGNITE-1952 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1952 Project: Ignite Issue

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-1951) PortableContext: lowerCaseHashCodeSafe might return 0.

Vladimir Ozerov created IGNITE-1951: --- Summary: PortableContext: lowerCaseHashCodeSafe might return 0. Key: IGNITE-1951 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1951 Project: Ignite

Re: Ignite camel streamer

Hi, I added the README.txt and the license.txt in commit 480d457a724800c1afa4aadf3fc9ceda7f9a217f. For the record, you must not call something an "issue" and request "a fix" when there was no requirement in the Wiki to begin with (it was added earlier today by Anton Vinogradov). Let's use correc

Re: Javadoc warnings at Ignite 1.5

Anton, fixed in ignite-1.5. You said "warnings" in plural, but I only found the one. Could you clarify where else? *Raúl Kripalani* PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data and Messaging Engineer http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

Ok. So Infra replied and referred to an email on November 3rd which I somehow missed, indicating that it is indeed an ASF-wide temporary restriction. +1 to liberty of options to contribute/commit and to temporarily keeping track of branches to delete in the Wiki. Regards, *Raúl Kripalani* PMC &

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-1950) Binary format: Arrays and collections use handles differently in Java and platforms.

Vladimir Ozerov created IGNITE-1950: --- Summary: Binary format: Arrays and collections use handles differently in Java and platforms. Key: IGNITE-1950 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1950

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

+1 On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > I agree that there is absolutely no problems of have multiple ways to > provide contributions. > > If you are contributor, you can: > - Provide a patch; > - Provide a PR using GitHub mirror. > > If you are committer, you can: > - Provi

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

Exactly. Let's wait for Infra's feedback on why that restriction and when it'll be lifted.

[GitHub] ignite pull request: IGNITE-1949: Linux: make uninstall now delete...

GitHub user isapego opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/247 IGNITE-1949: Linux: make uninstall now delete directories. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/isapego/ignite ignite-1949 Alternati

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-1949) C++ platform library for Linux: make uninstall doesn't delete directories

Igor Sapego created IGNITE-1949: --- Summary: C++ platform library for Linux: make uninstall doesn't delete directories Key: IGNITE-1949 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1949 Project: Igni

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

I agree that there is absolutely no problems of have multiple ways to provide contributions. If you are contributor, you can: - Provide a patch; - Provide a PR using GitHub mirror. If you are committer, you can: - Provide a patch; - Provide a PR using GitHub mirror; - Use branch in ASF repo and r

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

Lads, It is not clear to me whether branch deletion is prohibited ASF-wide (Dmitriy: "we *cannot* delete branches") or by express project request. I've understood both things from the thread. So let's wait for INFRA to clarify: [1]. Can someone please explain why we resort to Github in the first

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:41 AM, Raul Kripalani wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Yakov Zhdanov > wrote: > > > But this leads to tons of garbage in repo and abandoned branches, etc. > > > > "Let's not do X because our developers are irresponsible and leave branches > behind?" -- Really?

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > But this leads to tons of garbage in repo and abandoned branches, etc. > "Let's not do X because our developers are irresponsible and leave branches behind?" -- Really? We have a zillion-pages set of contribution guidelines and we still thi

Re: Javadoc warnings at Ignite 1.5

Hi Thanks Anton for updating the wiki. I faced same issues during last 2-3 months and would be nice to avoid them in future On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Anton Vinogradov wrote: > Raul, > > Of course I can, > But this changes made by you recently, and it will be nice if you'll fix > them.

Re: Javadoc warnings at Ignite 1.5

Raul, Of course I can, But this changes made by you recently, and it will be nice if you'll fix them. I've added some requirment to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute Please see section Checklist before pust

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

I'd like to add that there is virtually no difference between using a branch in original repo and a branch in your personal fork on GitHub. Merges and other operations work seamlessly between multiple remotes. Committers don't even have to create PRs (except to run a TC build). Thanks, On Thu, No

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

But this leads to tons of garbage in repo and abandoned branches, etc. --Yakov 2015-11-19 12:19 GMT+03:00 Raul Kripalani : > As I said: "Pull requests make sense when outsiders want to make > contributions." > > Committers with write access to ASF Git have no reason to develop in > Github. > On

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Raul Kripalani wrote: > As I said: "Pull requests make sense when outsiders want to make > contributions." > > Committers with write access to ASF Git have no reason to develop > in Github. > Raul, given that we cannot delete branches, I think we should very clos

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

As I said: "Pull requests make sense when outsiders want to make contributions." Committers with write access to ASF Git have no reason to develop in Github. On 19 Nov 2015 09:13, "Yakov Zhdanov" wrote: > Disagree. This means none but committer can contribute. > > --Yakov > > 2015-11-19 12:08 GM

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

Disagree. This means none but committer can contribute. --Yakov 2015-11-19 12:08 GMT+03:00 Raul Kripalani : > I disagree. > > Code should be in the ASF infra. > > Pull requests make sense when outsiders want to make contributions. > > The usage of ASF infra is not a mere formality. > > Raúl. > O

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

So branch deletion is disabled on purpose? On 19 Nov 2015 09:10, "Artem Shutak" wrote: > Dmitriy, > > No, according to a note [1] on the wiki page [2] we need to check on > unmerged changes before. Looks like we should add a status column (someone > already has proposed it) where we can track is

Re: Ignite-1.5 Release

The code was already reviewed and merged with squash. IGNITE-1790. On 19 Nov 2015 08:30, "Romain Gilles" wrote: > Hi Raul, > Could you please give the pull request or the branch or the ignite ticket > number? > I will be please to have a look to your pull request. > > Thanks, > > Romain > > Le je

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

Dmitriy, No, according to a note [1] on the wiki page [2] we need to check on unmerged changes before. Looks like we should add a status column (someone already has proposed it) where we can track is a branch ready to delete or not. [1] *Note. We don’t remove any *unmerged* branches. Even if the

Re: Ignite-1.5 Release

Branch ignite-1790 merged into ignite-1.5 with --squash. Like it was requested previous on previous occasions. On 19 Nov 2015 03:01, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Raul Kripalani wrote: > > > I merged the Camel Streamer today and I hope to finish the first phase of

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

I disagree. Code should be in the ASF infra. Pull requests make sense when outsiders want to make contributions. The usage of ASF infra is not a mere formality. Raúl. On 19 Nov 2015 08:57, "Yakov Zhdanov" wrote: > Guys, therefore, let's develop new functionality in personal forks, test on > T

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

Should we file a ticket with INFRA asking them to delete all the branches listed on this page: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Git+branches+to+delete Is it safe? D. On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > Guys, therefore, let's develop new functionality in p

Ignite camel streamer

Hi Raul I just found a few minor issues for your Ignite Camel streamer module if I build the fabric edition: 1. The module has no README.txt (/libs/optional/ignite-camel/README.txt). 2. The module has no Apache License (/libs/optional/ignite-camel/licenses/apache-2.0.txt). Could you take a look

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

Guys, therefore, let's develop new functionality in personal forks, test on TC with pull requests and then merge to apache git as described here - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute We should create new branches only if this is really necessary. Thanks! -- Yakov

Javadoc warnings at Ignite 1.5

Hello, I've checked output of prerelease build of Ignite 1.5 and found javadoc warnings like CamelStreamer.java:51: warning - Tag @link: malformed: "StreamMultipleTupleExtractor)" Raul, seems that was your changes. Could you please fix it?

Re: Ignite-1.5 Release

Hi Raul, Could you please give the pull request or the branch or the ignite ticket number? I will be please to have a look to your pull request. Thanks, Romain Le jeu. 19 nov. 2015 à 04:01, Dmitriy Setrakyan a écrit : > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Raul Kripalani wrote: > > > I merged the