Dmitriy,
Hot redeployment and versioning will not be implemented in phase 1,
but it is scheduled once it is finished.
Here is an umbrella ticket [1] to track phase 1 scope.
It includes very few new features, but we completely rework component
to improve guarantees to be more reliable and we
Hi Igniters,
I've detected some new issue on TeamCity to be handled. You are more than
welcomed to help.
If your changes can lead to this failure(s): We're grateful that you were a
volunteer to make the contribution to this project, but things change and you
may no longer be able to
Hi Igniters,
I've detected some new issue on TeamCity to be handled. You are more than
welcomed to help.
If your changes can lead to this failure(s): We're grateful that you were a
volunteer to make the contribution to this project, but things change and you
may no longer be able to
Thank you Andrew
Regards,
Saikat
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 7:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov
wrote:
> Hi Saikat,
>
> Sorry for late answer. I've checked changes a day ago. Now, looks good.
> Hope, it will be merged soon.
>
> Alex, would you please merge PR to master.
>
> сб, 29 сент. 2018 г., 2:29 Saikat
Hi Saikat,
Sorry for late answer. I've checked changes a day ago. Now, looks good.
Hope, it will be merged soon.
Alex, would you please merge PR to master.
сб, 29 сент. 2018 г., 2:29 Saikat Maitra :
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I have updated the changes.
>
> Can you please review and share feedback.
>
>
Hi Andrew,
I have updated the changes.
Can you please review and share feedback.
Regards
Saikat
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 2:23 PM Saikat Maitra
wrote:
> Hi Andrew
>
>
> I have updated the changes.
>
>
> Can you please review and share feedback.
>
>
> Regards
> Saikat
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018
Hi Igniters,
I've detected some new issue on TeamCity to be handled. You are more than
welcomed to help.
If your changes can lead to this failure(s): We're grateful that you were a
volunteer to make the contribution to this project, but things change and you
may no longer be able to
Hi Igniters,
I've detected some new issue on TeamCity to be handled. You are more than
welcomed to help.
If your changes can lead to this failure(s): We're grateful that you were a
volunteer to make the contribution to this project, but things change and you
may no longer be able to
Oleg Ignatenko created IGNITE-9740:
--
Summary: [ML] Remove IgniteThread wrapper from ml unit test
EvaluatorTest (follow up to IGNITE-9711)
Key: IGNITE-9740
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9740
I am not sure I can agree. SG redesign includes:
- hot redeployment
- versioning
In my experience, features like these take about 1 month to test properly
and fix all the bugs, including redeployment tests and restart tests on
larger topologies, together with overnight runs. If this type of
Nikolay, because I think you're a do'er, but not a commenter, like me, for
example, I can trust your opinion.
I will join review if I have spare cycles.
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 20:34, Denis Magda :
> Nikolay,
>
> Thanks for stepping in and giving more context. In general, I'm fully for
> your
Nikolay,
Thanks for stepping in and giving more context. In general, I'm fully for
your proposal below:
My vote goes to option *a*.
> I think we should release 2.7 with the bunch of new cool features.
> *AND* we should plan 2.8 release at the end of the year with SG redesign
> and MVCC
Hello, Igniters.
I think we shouldn't put so many emotions in discussion of any contribution.
Even so big and important as SG redesign.
The crucial point we all agreed about: Service Grid redesign a big feature that
can significally improve Ignite.
We all want to have it in the product.
Let me
I've checked run.
There are no suspicious test failures here, all failures are more or less
the same with the master.
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 20:03, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> Hi David,
>
> Snapshot Dependency Error is TeamCity term means some from dependent
> builds failed.
>
> Because some percent of
Hi David,
Snapshot Dependency Error is TeamCity term means some from dependent builds
failed.
Because some percent of tests have constant floating failures, almost all
runs will get this error.
I will do some tests validation shortly.
Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 15:17,
Hello.
Looks like you are right about interrupted flag. I don't understand why tests
was pass successfully in master. Your solution also looks correct.
SegmentAware - it's info object of actual state of WAL segments like "current
work segment", "last archived segment" etc. Actually it's
Even though I was not involved in the Service Grid 2.0 architectural or
development discussions, my guts feel that we need to allocate enough time
to test them through. It won't be just a fix or minor improvement,
Vyacheslav has been working on a tremendous task that seems to re-engineer
many
Hi Dmitriy,
The design is aligned totally. The thread you mention was not named
properly.
It seems to me some community members are trying to take over the community
and lead it instead of doing.
As a member of the Apache community, I value Do-ocracy and power of those
who do, but not just
Dmitriy,
We agreed in the beginning of this thread that Service Grid changes are not
going to make the release because the community still did not approve the
design. Nothing has changed since. I have not seen any design discussions.
At this point, I have no confidence that the Service Grid
GitHub user ascherbakoff opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4874
IGNITE- 9658
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-9658-2
Alternatively you can review and apply
GitHub user pavlukhin opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4873
IGNITE-5935: MVCC transaction recovery
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-5935
Alternatively you
Github user pavlukhin closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4818
---
Github user rkondakov closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3212
---
GitHub user sdarlington opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4872
IGNITE-1436: Build C++ API on the Mac
Creating PR to 'advertise' that it's being worked on. Tasks still to
complete:
* Test on Linux / Windows to make sure I've not broken anything
Github user ascherbakoff closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4864
---
Andrey, Andrey
> Thanks for being attentive! It's definitely a typo. Could you please
create
> an issue?
I've created an issue [1] and prepared PR [2].
Please, review this change.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9723
[2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4862
On Fri, 28
Sergey Kosarev created IGNITE-9739:
--
Summary: Critical exception in transaction processing in case we
have nodes out of baseline and non-persisted cache
Key: IGNITE-9739
URL:
GitHub user tledkov-gridgain opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4871
IGNITE-9727: fix ignite.sh & ignite.bat start scripts for JDK 9/10/11
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4863
---
Github user vveider closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4804
---
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4831
---
Hi,
These tests were recently unmuted, but not contributed. I would appreciate
if someone can provide more info why these tests were unmuted.
Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 17:47, :
> Hi Igniters,
>
> I've detected some new issue on TeamCity to be handled. You are more than
Vladislav Pyatkov created IGNITE-9738:
-
Summary: Client node can suddenly fail on start
Key: IGNITE-9738
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9738
Project: Ignite
Issue
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4858
---
Hi Igniters,
I've detected some new issue on TeamCity to be handled. You are more than
welcomed to help.
If your changes can lead to this failure(s): We're grateful that you were a
volunteer to make the contribution to this project, but things change and you
may no longer be able to
GitHub user tledkov-gridgain opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4870
Ignite 9171 for tests
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-9171-1
Alternatively you can
Hi, this failure does not seem to be a new failure.
This test was recently unmuted, and the Bot considers it as new.
Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 17:17, :
> Hi Igniters,
>
> I've detected some new issue on TeamCity to be handled. You are more than
> welcomed to help.
>
>
Hi Igniters,
I've detected some new issue on TeamCity to be handled. You are more than
welcomed to help.
If your changes can lead to this failure(s): We're grateful that you were a
volunteer to make the contribution to this project, but things change and you
may no longer be able to
Config option + mbean access. Does that make sense?
Yakov
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 17:17 Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
> Then it should be config option.
>
> пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 13:15, Andrey Gura :
>
> > Guys,
> >
> > why we need both config option and system property? I believe one way is
> >
GitHub user dehasi opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4869
IGNITE-9282 Add Gaussian Naive Bayes Classifier
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/dehasi/ignite feature/ignite-9282-naive-bayes
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4865
---
Igniters,
I would like to discuss this question here and create a separate topic for
it. Previously, I've posted some comments on the probable issue in Apache
Ignite 2.7 topic [2]. My question is related to the IGNITE-8559 [3] (commit
[4]). We've added a new SegmentAware class and change the
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4867
---
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4725
---
GitHub user Jokser opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4868
IGNITE-9736 Fixed public API for Discovery SPI listener
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-9736
1.
This is my second newbie submission, it could use a review, and I
keep getting snapshot dependency errors in teamcity that seem like the
cannot be related to my changes, even after rebasing 2 twice.
I couldn't
find a crisp defintion of what a snapshot dependency is.
Importance come from the fact that we agreed on these dates. Neither
community, nor implementors of the feature were against it. And community
already work hard to met that dates: a lot of people already aligned their
plans, a lot very important tickets were moved out of scope to met the
dates.
Hi guys!
By the way, is it practically feasible to revert a single commit without
making harm? If I am getting it right in current case reverting commit will
lead to compilation errors for commits depending on commit in question.
2018-09-28 14:22 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Pavlov :
> Hi Dmitriy S.,
>
>
GitHub user zaleslaw opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4867
IGNITE-9713: Improve JavaDocs for String Preprocessing
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-9713
GitHub user pavel-kuznetsov opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4866
IGNITE-9712: SQL Select query benchmarks suite
Updated data model.
Added new configuration file for select benchmarks.
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
Hi Dmitriy, Vladimir,
I suggest we stop this nonsense with release dates-pushing because of some
open question.
Just because you disagreed with any include/exclude something into scope,
does not mean that whole community disagreed.
If folks will start a separate discussion with results of the
Hi Dmitriy S.,
I really prefer avoiding reverts, which why I've started this topic. If I
were reverting-fan, I could just write: "Vetoing commit because of
test failures , commit reverted, ticket IGNITE- reopened."
But some time ago I several times asked newbie contributors to fix
GitHub user zaleslaw opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4865
IGNITE-9717: Fixed setters in LogReg and SVM
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-9717
Then it should be config option.
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 13:15, Andrey Gura :
> Guys,
>
> why we need both config option and system property? I believe one way is
> enough.
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:38 PM Nikolay Izhikov
> wrote:
> >
> > Ticket created -
Andrey,
This is not a fix, but a hack, which covers real state of affairs.
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 13:00, Andrey Mashenkov :
> Hi,
>
> Fix is trivial and ready.
> Hope, it will be merged within IGNITE-7764 today.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7764
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at
Guys,
why we need both config option and system property? I believe one way is enough.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:38 PM Nikolay Izhikov wrote:
>
> Ticket created - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9737
>
> Fixed version is 2.7.
>
> В Пт, 28/09/2018 в 11:41 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk
Hi,
Fix is trivial and ready.
Hope, it will be merged within IGNITE-7764 today.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7764
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:26 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> Guys, let's just fix the tests without reverting commits. Reverting a
> commit may trigger a time
Ticket created - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9737
Fixed version is 2.7.
В Пт, 28/09/2018 в 11:41 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет:
> Nikolay, I agree, a user should be able to disable both thread liveness
> check and checkpoint read lock timeout check from config and a system
>
Nikolay Izhikov created IGNITE-9737:
---
Summary: Ignite WatchDog service should be configurable
Key: IGNITE-9737
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9737
Project: Ignite
Issue
Andrew Mashenkov created IGNITE-9736:
Summary: Public interface DiscoverySpiListener.onDiscovery returns
private API class
Key: IGNITE-9736
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9736
Ivan Pavlukhin created IGNITE-9735:
--
Summary: Determine partitions during parsing for MVCC DML
statements
Key: IGNITE-9735
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9735
Project: Ignite
Guys, let's just fix the tests without reverting commits. Reverting a
commit may trigger a time machine, where all following commits may be
broken because of it. Fixing that scenario will be much harder.
Going forward, I would agree that we should not merge anything that breaks
tests. This is
If services is not ready, which it is not, then we should include them into
the next release. There is no need to force them into 2.7. I suggest we
move according to the schedule we all agreed on.
D.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov
wrote:
> Yes, so correct statement is
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4860
---
GitHub user ascherbakoff opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4864
IGNITE-9612 test fix
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-9612
Alternatively you can review and
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4849
---
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4525
---
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4847
---
GitHub user akalash opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4863
IGNITE-9731 hold segmentId on constructor of FileHandle
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-9731
I think if a commit does not lead to any test failure in the current
master, there are no reasons to revert the commit. If there are valid
scenarios which are failing, corresponding tests should be added and the
root cause should be fixed under a separate issue.
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:19,
Nikolay, I agree, a user should be able to disable both thread liveness
check and checkpoint read lock timeout check from config and a system
property.
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:30, Nikolay Izhikov :
> Hello, Igniters.
>
> I found that this feature can't be disabled from config.
> The only way
Hello, Igniters.
I found that this feature can't be disabled from config.
The only way to disable it is from JMX bean.
I think it very dangerous: If we have some corner case or a bug in this Watch
Dog it can make Ignite unusable.
I propose to implement possibility to disable this feature both -
Andrew Mashenkov created IGNITE-9734:
Summary: Fix flacky test GridIndexRebuildSelfTest.testIndexRebuild.
Key: IGNITE-9734
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9734
Project: Ignite
Yes, so correct statement is "community did not make any decisions about
services not go to 2.7/ services are out of scope".
If so, please forgive me my confusion.
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:19, Vladimir Ozerov :
> Exactly. So correct statement is “it is up to *community* to decide whether
>
Hi Maxim,
Once 1) you are sure that commit is related to the failure, and 2) in case
contributors are not responding,
please let me know, probably we need to open one more separate topic about
revert.
Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:15, Maxim Muzafarov :
> Andrey, Dmitry,
>
Exactly. So correct statement is “it is up to *community* to decide whether
something goes to 2.7”.
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:11, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> No, it is up to the community to discuss after their review results.
>
> пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:09, Vladimir Ozerov :
>
> > Dmitriy,
> >
> > Did
Andrey, Dmitry,
> I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. It looks
critical enough and can be a good candidate for fixing before 2.7 release.
I've found that commit [2] is also lead the exchange worker to hang in my
branch related to IGNITE-7196.
Not sure, I'm able to fix
No, it is up to the community to discuss after their review results.
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:09, Vladimir Ozerov :
> Dmitriy,
>
> Did I read your words correctly that it is up to implementor of a single
> feature to decide whether release of all other features and fixes to be
> delayed?
>
>
Dmitriy,
Did I read your words correctly that it is up to implementor of a single
feature to decide whether release of all other features and fixes to be
delayed?
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:00, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> My point we can wait a bit for services because
> 1 we are open-minded and we
My point we can wait a bit for services because
1 we are open-minded and we don't have outside pressure to do release in
October
2 and services it is not some new feature, which suddenly appeared in
autumn, it is a well known and important feature.
So it is up to Vyacheslav, Anton and Nikolay
Yep, we're humans and we constantly make mistakes. It is a very human thing
to do mistakes.
So I suggest we will be under the control and protection of robot to avoid
mistakes, I suggest robot will revert such commits in 72h without its own
personal attitudes, emotions, etc.
Someone who is
Dmitry,
Community agreement was to perform the release in October. Of course we can
wait a bit for services. Then we wait a bit for other cool features ready
by that time, then again and again, and release will never happen. And
while we are waiting for new features to come, already completerd
Because a lot of other activities depended on configuration in Java, and we
didn't have expertise to fix .NET immediately.
If you want to revert it - please go ahead. But I'd better suggest you to
think about the impact and project priorities first, instead of trying to
apply the some sort rules
Hi Dmitriy,
Why not revert the change?
This test failure was appropriately reported to the dev list, and the
contributor did not fix it:
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/MTCGA-new-failures-in-builds-1888723-needs-to-be-handled-td35239.html
It seems this idea of filing
GitHub user Mmuzaf opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4862
IGNITE-9723: use blockingSectionBegin method to wrap exch future
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/Mmuzaf/ignite ignite-9723
Hi Vladimir,
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9320 is named configuration
finalization.
Why finalization was considered as done without tests passing?
Why can't ve revert finalization change, re-do finalization with passing
tests and merge changes?
Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov
пт, 28
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4322
---
87 matches
Mail list logo
