Hi,
It seems that all documents are unpublished version 2.12 documents?
For example, the following documents are unpublished IndexQuery:
https://ignite.apache.org/docs/2.11.0/key-value-api/using-cache-queries
https://ignite.apache.org/docs/2.10.0/key-value-api/using-cache-queries
I'm for the second option.
Same here. The second option seems the most reasonable.
-Val
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 8:07 AM Alexei Scherbakov <
alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for 2
>
> чт, 16 дек. 2021 г. в 18:50, Pavel Tupitsyn :
>
> > Option 2 seems the most sensible.
> > It translates to/from other languages
Hi Maxim,
Thanks a lot!
> Check the following links below.
Looks good to me.
чт, 16 дек. 2021 г. в 20:19, Maxim Muzafarov :
> Folks,
>
>
> I'm OK with this. Let's go through the fastest way we have.
>
>
> Check the following links below. I'll prepare the vote shortly.
>
> Compare branches
Hi!
TeamCity server https://ci2.ignite.apache.org/ will be unavailable on
Friday 17.12 from 22:00 MSK to 00:00 MSK
Works will be done to synchronize the TeamCity configuration
https://ci2.ignite.apache.org/ with TeamCity https://ci.ignite.apache.org/
Best regards,
Osipov Vitaliy
Andrey, agree with you, good point.
чт, 16 дек. 2021 г., 16:27 Andrey Mashenkov :
> Guys,
>
> I like the idea with a flag, but for a different purpose.
> I think it is easy to detect the issue (using the flag) when
> metastorage was created on a new version with a fixed charset, or on an
> older
Folks,
I'm OK with this. Let's go through the fastest way we have.
Check the following links below. I'll prepare the vote shortly.
Compare branches 2.11 and 2.11.1:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/compare/ignite-2.11...ignite-2.11.1
The release branch:
Hello!
I also agree with Stephen. If we wanted to do a stabilization release we
should unbound it from this urgent fix.
I wonder why 2.12 is not with us already, given that it was scheduled to go
out in August.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
чт, 16 дек. 2021 г. в 19:25, Вячеслав Коптилин :
>
Hello,
> Given that 2.12 is so close, my preference would be to limit the scope of
2.11.1 to just the log4j update.
I agree with Stephen. Apache Ignite 2.11.1 is an emergency release. Using
log4j 2.16 instead of 2.14 is a quite small change that only requires a
"sanity" check and can be quickly
+1 for 2
чт, 16 дек. 2021 г. в 18:50, Pavel Tupitsyn :
> Option 2 seems the most sensible.
> It translates to/from other languages and should be already familiar to
> some developers.
>
> For example, with nullable checks enabled, C# treats everything as not
> null, unless specified otherwise
Option 2 seems the most sensible.
It translates to/from other languages and should be already familiar to
some developers.
For example, with nullable checks enabled, C# treats everything as not
null, unless specified otherwise with "?".
Same for other languages where Option/Maybe type is present.
Dear Igniters!
I would like to propose a discussion about defining a policy regarding
where and how to use @Nullable/@NotNull annotations. These annotations are
used in conjunction with a static analysis engine (e.g. built in IDEA) and
are useful for avoiding null dereferencing and specifying
Guys,
I like the idea with a flag, but for a different purpose.
I think it is easy to detect the issue (using the flag) when
metastorage was created on a new version with a fixed charset, or on an
older version with the user-defined default.
Regarding the flag, we can choose a new strategy
I think it is completely possible to move vote/release dates
significantly forward with keeping the scope. I will take a look at
the list of fixed bugs more narrowly and exclude some of them that
require additional verification.
On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 at 15:55, Stephen Darlington
wrote:
>
> Given
Pavel,
My vote is for option (1). Simple and clear.
As you noted, with (2) it is not clear which methods are affected.
Also, we don't provide methods like withTimeout, withSticky, so adding
withContext will introduce another inconsistency.
(3) seems to be too complicated.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021
Folks,
This is also a good candidate to include in the proposed release.
AssertionError in B+Tree under load
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15990
On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 at 15:54, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
>
> Maxim,
>
> Thanks for taking this, scope looks good to me.
> I think we can
Given that 2.12 is so close, my preference would be to limit the scope of
2.11.1 to just the log4j update. Would that help bring the vote/release date
forward?
> On 16 Dec 2021, at 12:44, Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
>
> Dear Ignite Community!
>
> I suggest preparing the Apache Ignite 2.11.1
Maxim,
Thanks for taking this, scope looks good to me.
I think we can even start the vote today or tomorrow, given the severity of
log4j issue.
Pavel
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 3:44 PM Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
> Dear Ignite Community!
>
> I suggest preparing the Apache Ignite 2.11.1 release and I
Dear Ignite Community!
I suggest preparing the Apache Ignite 2.11.1 release and I want to
propose myself to be the release manager of the minor release.
* RELEASE TIMELINE *
Scope Freeze: December 16, 2021
Code Freeze: December 16, 2021
Voting Date: December 21, 2021
Release Date: December 24,
Hi folks!
The discussed feature is currently under development and recently
there was a proposal for an API improvement, which I want to discuss.
It is about how the user can specify a service call context when
getting a proxy.
I see the following options:
1. Passing the context as an argument
Slava, great ticket!
I suppose, that we can add feature flag to BPlusMetaIO and if it doesn't
present or it is value is false, we can rebuild metastore during
recovery and decode strings to default system encoding and save all of them
back to UTF-8. After recovery, we should use UTF-8 by default.
Hi folks,
IMHO, we should do our best to fix all these places and should avoid using
the default charset. In my understanding, this is only
> The main question is - should we restrict the join of nodes with
different encodings or just fix all places where implicit default encoding
is used and
Hello Nikita,
> I have cherry-picked the issue [1] to the 2.12. It updates the log4j
version to 2.16.
Thanks a lot!
Could you please share a current timeline for the rest steps related to the
release?
Thanks,
S.
ср, 15 дек. 2021 г. в 21:45, Nikita Amelchev :
> I have cherry-picked the issue
23 matches
Mail list logo
