Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Locked
12345
... 7
12345
... 7
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
 
|
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
|
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
|
|
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
|
|
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
|
|
In reply to this post by yzhdanov
Hell, Yakov
I'm ok with your proposal. * Scope freeze - September 17 - We should have a full list of tickets for 2.7 here. * Code freeze - October 01 - We should merge all 2.7 tickets to master here. * Vote on RC1 - October 11. * Vote on release - October 15. В Ср, 29/08/2018 в 12:39 +0300, Yakov Zhdanov пишет: > Nikolay, > > I think we should have 2 weeks after code freeze which by the way may > include RC1 voting stage. This way I would like us to agree that release > candidate should be sent to vote on Oct, 11th and we can release on Oct, > 15th. > > What do you think? > > --Yakov |
signature.asc (499 bytes)
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
|
|
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
|
|
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
|
|
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
|
|
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
|
|
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
|
|
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
|
|
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
|
|
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
|
|
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
|
|
Hello, Igniters.
I want to start and release procedures and make an RC1 build. It has a 2 intention: 1. I want to walk through all release steps to make sure they all works for me. So I will be fully ready on release date. 2. We have updated some dependencies in 2.7 and we need to make sure binary build is still workable. Any objections? В Пт, 14/09/2018 в 18:52 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет: > We already have all the mechanics in place to work with properties - we use > ignite.build and ignite.revision from ignite.properties which are adjusted > during the build in the binary package. > > Should I create the ticket if there are no objections? > > пт, 14 сент. 2018 г. в 13:22, Ilya Kasnacheev <[hidden email]>: > > > Hello! > > > > So now there's an issue that this script makes source change after every > > build, show up in git status. > > > > What we could do to it: > > - Commit the changes after the build, once. In hopes that it won't change > > very often. With benefit that we could do that right now, before the code > > freeze. > > - Move these values to a properties file from both pom.xml and > > IgniteProvider.java. Any problems with this approach? We'll just read them > > from classpath properties file. > > - Update the links in the file once and remove them from build process. Why > > were they added to build process in the first place - to make them > > configurable during build? > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > вт, 11 сент. 2018 г. в 5:53, Roman Shtykh <[hidden email]>: > > > > > Ilya, > > > > > > The "latest" version is the default, and resolved by > > > https://ignite.apache.org/latest which is used by our web site when a > > > user download the latest Ignite version. And I think this is the > > > > authority > > > to judge of the latest official release (pom.xml you suggest can have > > > SNAPSHOTs etc.). > > > Also, as I explained during our review sessions, ignite-mesos-2.6.0 is a > > > driver and doesn't mean you need to have Ignite 2.6.0. User can run any > > > version of Ignite he/she specifies. By default, it's "latest" but a user > > > can specify any version needed, even from a non-archive URL. > > > > > > In short, what we have now > > > 1. mesos driver (ignite-mesos-x.x.x) will use "latest" version by default > > > -> it will try to resolve the latest officially releases version of > > > > Apache > > > Ignite, find the closest mirror and download Ignite in a minute. If the > > > version resolution fails, we fall back to the slow apache archive (as you > > > suggest; in my opinion we better fail-fast instead of waiting for hours > > > > to > > > download, so the user can choose another download option (3)) > > > 2. If the user specifies the version explicitly, it goes to the slow > > > apache archive. > > > 3. The user can put ignite zip file on his/her http server and provide > > > > the > > > URL as a parameter to the driver, if options 1 and 2 don't work. > > > > > > As you see, there are 3 options. And I just fix the 1st one with > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9388 and don't change the > > > original logic (which I find reasonable) documented on our site -- I > > > > don't > > > see how it blocks anything. > > > > > > Roman Shtykh > > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 10, 2018, 6:16:15 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev < > > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > There's still two issues with the submission. > > > > > > The first one is that we're downloading "latest" version from preferred > > > mirror but a specified version, such as "2.6", we're also going to > > > > download > > > from "slow" archive.apache.org/dist. > > > That's a great limitation for this change, since most real deployments of > > > Apache Ignite will have their Ignite version pegged to a specific > > > > release. > > > But in this case there's no win in download speed. > > > *In my opinion it is a blocker.* > > > > > > The second one is that we can't download anything when we failed to > > > resolve "latest". My idea is that we should try and download last known > > > version in this case, which can be pushed to source from pom.xml, as we > > > already do with URLs. So if you could not resolve "latest" you will > > > download 2.7.0. > > > > > > Buuut, maybe it's not necessary, maybe we should just *discourage > > > "latest"*, which is in my opinion almost always a bad idea. > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > Regards, > > > -- > > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > > > > вс, 9 сент. 2018 г. в 5:47, Roman Shtykh <[hidden email]>: > > > > > > Hi Ilya, > > > > > > Sorry, missed that. > > > Added now. > > > > > > -- > > > Roman Shtykh > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, September 6, 2018, 6:16:58 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev < > > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > The last of my requests still standing is that we should fall-back to > > > single URL download in case of error with 'latest' version. Everything > > > > else > > > looks good to me. > > > > > > Can we do that? I'm really worried that Apache API will go sour. > > > > > > Regards, > > > -- > > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > > > > чт, 6 сент. 2018 г. в 8:56, Roman Shtykh <[hidden email]>: > > > > > > Hi Ilya, > > > > > > Thanks again. > > > > > > 1) Done. > > > 2) Used catch() for latest version. > > > > > > Please see my comments on github. > > > -- > > > Roman Shtykh > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 5, 2018, 11:30:10 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev < > > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > I've left a new wave of replies. > > > > > > Basically, 1) let's keep DOWNLOAD_URL_PATTERN string value inlined so > > > that it will work even if build process is broken (would be useful for > > > > e.g. > > > developing out of IDE) > > > And also I urge you to catch() around new fragile Apache JSON API > > > resolving, and download the 'current' version instead, as defined by > > > ignite-mesos version. > > > > > > This is because this module is not under continuouos scrutiny so extra > > > care should be applied. > > > -- > > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 сент. 2018 г. в 13:42, Roman Shtykh <[hidden email]>: > > > > > > Thanks, Ilya! > > > I will check your comments, and discuss it at JIRA. > > > > > > -- > > > Roman Shtykh > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 4, 2018, 7:17:53 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev < > > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > IGNITE-9408 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9408> looks > > > good to me and may be merged right away. > > > > > > IGNITE-9388 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9388> needs > > > more work in my opinion, I have commented the PR. I also advice having > > > > test > > > for this functionality. > > > > > > Regards, > > > -- > > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 сент. 2018 г. в 6:52, Roman Shtykh <[hidden email]>: > > > > > > Igniters, > > > I would like Mesos integration update be included in the upcoming > > > release.Can anyone review prs for the following issues? > > > IGNITE-9388: mesos IgniteProvider tries to access obsolete ignite.run or > > > download from slow archiveIGNITE-9408: Update mesos version > > > > > > Roman Shtykh > > > > > > On Thursday, August 30, 2018, 9:25:43 p.m. GMT+9, Vyacheslav Daradur > > > > < > > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Igniters! > > > > > > I'm working on the following Service Grid tasks: > > > - IGNITE-8361 Use discovery messages for service deployment > > > - IGNITE-8362 Collect service deployment results asynchronously on > > > coordinator > > > - IGNITE-8363 Handle topology changes during service deployment > > > - IGNITE-8364 Propagate deployed services to joining nodes > > > - IGNITE-8365 Introduce service failure events > > > - IGNITE-3392 Propagate service deployment results from assigned nodes > > > to initiator > > > > > > Let's call them *phase 1* because the should be implemented together > > > (atomically). > > > > > > I do my best to finish phase 1 for including to 2.7 release. > > > > > > But I'm not sure that the solution will be fully completed till the > > > beginning of October. > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 7:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hell, Yakov > > > > > > > > I'm ok with your proposal. > > > > > > > > * Scope freeze - September 17 - We should have a full list of > > > > > > tickets for 2.7 here. > > > > * Code freeze - October 01 - We should merge all 2.7 tickets to > > > > > > master here. > > > > * Vote on RC1 - October 11. > > > > * Vote on release - October 15. > > > > > > > > В Ср, 29/08/2018 в 12:39 +0300, Yakov Zhdanov пишет: > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > I think we should have 2 weeks after code freeze which by the way may > > > > > include RC1 voting stage. This way I would like us to agree that > > > > > > release > > > > > candidate should be sent to vote on Oct, 11th and we can release on > > > > > > Oct, > > > > > 15th. > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > --Yakov > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > |
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
|
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
|
|
Hello, Petr.
I want to make ignite-2.7 branch today. And execute release procedure based on this branch. However, ignite-2.7 branch will be copy of master until code freeze date. В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:13 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет: > Will it be just a test or there is already ignite-2.7 branch? > > Fabric removal related TC modifications are not ready yet, and code is not in master. > > > > > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:07, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > I want to start and release procedures and make an RC1 build. > > > > It has a 2 intention: > > > > 1. I want to walk through all release steps to make sure they all works for me. > > So I will be fully ready on release date. > > > > 2. We have updated some dependencies in 2.7 and we need to make sure binary build is still workable. > > > > Any objections? > > > > > > В Пт, 14/09/2018 в 18:52 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет: > > > We already have all the mechanics in place to work with properties - we use > > > ignite.build and ignite.revision from ignite.properties which are adjusted > > > during the build in the binary package. > > > > > > Should I create the ticket if there are no objections? > > > > > > пт, 14 сент. 2018 г. в 13:22, Ilya Kasnacheev <[hidden email]>: > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > So now there's an issue that this script makes source change after every > > > > build, show up in git status. > > > > > > > > What we could do to it: > > > > - Commit the changes after the build, once. In hopes that it won't change > > > > very often. With benefit that we could do that right now, before the code > > > > freeze. > > > > - Move these values to a properties file from both pom.xml and > > > > IgniteProvider.java. Any problems with this approach? We'll just read them > > > > from classpath properties file. > > > > - Update the links in the file once and remove them from build process. Why > > > > were they added to build process in the first place - to make them > > > > configurable during build? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > -- > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 11 сент. 2018 г. в 5:53, Roman Shtykh <[hidden email]>: > > > > > > > > > Ilya, > > > > > > > > > > The "latest" version is the default, and resolved by > > > > > https://ignite.apache.org/latest which is used by our web site when a > > > > > user download the latest Ignite version. And I think this is the > > > > > > > > authority > > > > > to judge of the latest official release (pom.xml you suggest can have > > > > > SNAPSHOTs etc.). > > > > > Also, as I explained during our review sessions, ignite-mesos-2.6.0 is a > > > > > driver and doesn't mean you need to have Ignite 2.6.0. User can run any > > > > > version of Ignite he/she specifies. By default, it's "latest" but a user > > > > > can specify any version needed, even from a non-archive URL. > > > > > > > > > > In short, what we have now > > > > > 1. mesos driver (ignite-mesos-x.x.x) will use "latest" version by default > > > > > -> it will try to resolve the latest officially releases version of > > > > > > > > Apache > > > > > Ignite, find the closest mirror and download Ignite in a minute. If the > > > > > version resolution fails, we fall back to the slow apache archive (as you > > > > > suggest; in my opinion we better fail-fast instead of waiting for hours > > > > > > > > to > > > > > download, so the user can choose another download option (3)) > > > > > 2. If the user specifies the version explicitly, it goes to the slow > > > > > apache archive. > > > > > 3. The user can put ignite zip file on his/her http server and provide > > > > > > > > the > > > > > URL as a parameter to the driver, if options 1 and 2 don't work. > > > > > > > > > > As you see, there are 3 options. And I just fix the 1st one with > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9388 and don't change the > > > > > original logic (which I find reasonable) documented on our site -- I > > > > > > > > don't > > > > > see how it blocks anything. > > > > > > > > > > Roman Shtykh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 10, 2018, 6:16:15 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev < > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > > > There's still two issues with the submission. > > > > > > > > > > The first one is that we're downloading "latest" version from preferred > > > > > mirror but a specified version, such as "2.6", we're also going to > > > > > > > > download > > > > > from "slow" archive.apache.org/dist. > > > > > That's a great limitation for this change, since most real deployments of > > > > > Apache Ignite will have their Ignite version pegged to a specific > > > > > > > > release. > > > > > But in this case there's no win in download speed. > > > > > *In my opinion it is a blocker.* > > > > > > > > > > The second one is that we can't download anything when we failed to > > > > > resolve "latest". My idea is that we should try and download last known > > > > > version in this case, which can be pushed to source from pom.xml, as we > > > > > already do with URLs. So if you could not resolve "latest" you will > > > > > download 2.7.0. > > > > > > > > > > Buuut, maybe it's not necessary, maybe we should just *discourage > > > > > "latest"*, which is in my opinion almost always a bad idea. > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > -- > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вс, 9 сент. 2018 г. в 5:47, Roman Shtykh <[hidden email]>: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ilya, > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, missed that. > > > > > Added now. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Roman Shtykh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, September 6, 2018, 6:16:58 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev < > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > > > The last of my requests still standing is that we should fall-back to > > > > > single URL download in case of error with 'latest' version. Everything > > > > > > > > else > > > > > looks good to me. > > > > > > > > > > Can we do that? I'm really worried that Apache API will go sour. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > -- > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 6 сент. 2018 г. в 8:56, Roman Shtykh <[hidden email]>: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ilya, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again. > > > > > > > > > > 1) Done. > > > > > 2) Used catch() for latest version. > > > > > > > > > > Please see my comments on github. > > > > > -- > > > > > Roman Shtykh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 5, 2018, 11:30:10 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev < > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > > > I've left a new wave of replies. > > > > > > > > > > Basically, 1) let's keep DOWNLOAD_URL_PATTERN string value inlined so > > > > > that it will work even if build process is broken (would be useful for > > > > > > > > e.g. > > > > > developing out of IDE) > > > > > And also I urge you to catch() around new fragile Apache JSON API > > > > > resolving, and download the 'current' version instead, as defined by > > > > > ignite-mesos version. > > > > > > > > > > This is because this module is not under continuouos scrutiny so extra > > > > > care should be applied. > > > > > -- > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 сент. 2018 г. в 13:42, Roman Shtykh <[hidden email]>: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Ilya! > > > > > I will check your comments, and discuss it at JIRA. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Roman Shtykh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 4, 2018, 7:17:53 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev < > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > > > IGNITE-9408 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9408> looks > > > > > good to me and may be merged right away. > > > > > > > > > > IGNITE-9388 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9388> needs > > > > > more work in my opinion, I have commented the PR. I also advice having > > > > > > > > test > > > > > for this functionality. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > -- > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 сент. 2018 г. в 6:52, Roman Shtykh <[hidden email]>: > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > I would like Mesos integration update be included in the upcoming > > > > > release.Can anyone review prs for the following issues? > > > > > IGNITE-9388: mesos IgniteProvider tries to access obsolete ignite.run or > > > > > download from slow archiveIGNITE-9408: Update mesos version > > > > > > > > > > Roman Shtykh > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 30, 2018, 9:25:43 p.m. GMT+9, Vyacheslav Daradur > > > > > > > > < > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters! > > > > > > > > > > I'm working on the following Service Grid tasks: > > > > > - IGNITE-8361 Use discovery messages for service deployment > > > > > - IGNITE-8362 Collect service deployment results asynchronously on > > > > > coordinator > > > > > - IGNITE-8363 Handle topology changes during service deployment > > > > > - IGNITE-8364 Propagate deployed services to joining nodes > > > > > - IGNITE-8365 Introduce service failure events > > > > > - IGNITE-3392 Propagate service deployment results from assigned nodes > > > > > to initiator > > > > > > > > > > Let's call them *phase 1* because the should be implemented together > > > > > (atomically). > > > > > > > > > > I do my best to finish phase 1 for including to 2.7 release. > > > > > > > > > > But I'm not sure that the solution will be fully completed till the > > > > > beginning of October. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 7:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hell, Yakov > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm ok with your proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > * Scope freeze - September 17 - We should have a full list of > > > > > > > > > > tickets for 2.7 here. > > > > > > * Code freeze - October 01 - We should merge all 2.7 tickets to > > > > > > > > > > master here. > > > > > > * Vote on RC1 - October 11. > > > > > > * Vote on release - October 15. > > > > > > > > > > > > В Ср, 29/08/2018 в 12:39 +0300, Yakov Zhdanov пишет: > > > > > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should have 2 weeks after code freeze which by the way may > > > > > > > include RC1 voting stage. This way I would like us to agree that > > > > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > candidate should be sent to vote on Oct, 11th and we can release on > > > > > > > > > > Oct, > > > > > > > 15th. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Yakov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > |
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
|
|
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
|
Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
|
|
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |