Hi Maxim,
Single IEP per a major change looks desirable for me. But
I have doubts that it is always feasible.
Regarding naming. Could you please provide a couple of
examples of inaccurate names and how they might have
been improved?
чт, 8 нояб. 2018 г. в 21:19, Maxim Muzafarov :
> Vladimir,
>
Vladimir,
> If someone else will find more optimizations in the same are while the first
> IEP is still active, he can join this IEP.
You fit the right problem case. If someone finds a new optimization
opportunity (it's totally normal) he joins to an active `IEP
Optimization X`. Simultaneously
Maxim,
I am not quite understand what is the problem with "many major enhancements
per IEP" and terms such as "optimization" or so. The very goal of initial
IEP process was to accumulate global ideas, so that one may quickly
understand potentially hot areas around the product. This is about
Igniters,
I think, our community have accumulated enough experience with the process of
Ignite Enhancement Proposal (IEP) of introducing the major changes
into the Apache
Ignite. Now we have to take one step forward and make every major change and\or
improvement clear not only for community
