[DISCUSS] Ignite 3.0 development approach

[Kseniya Romanova]

Here are the slides from Alexey Goncharuk. Let's think this over and
continue on Monday:
https://go.gridgain.com/rs/491-TWR-806/images/Ignite_3_Plans_and_development_process.pdf

чт, 5 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:13, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:

> Folks,
>
> Should we perform cleanup work before (r)evolutional changes?
> My huge proposal is to get rid of things which we don't need anyway
> - local caches,
> - strange tx modes,
> - code overcomplexity because of RollingUpgrade feature never attended at
> AI,
> - etc,
> before choosing the way.
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:31 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Ksenia, thanks for scheduling this on such short notice!
> >
> > As for the original topic, I do support Alexey's idea. We're not going to
> > rewrite anything from scratch, as most of the components are going to be
> > moved as-is or with minimal modifications. However, the changes that are
> > proposed imply serious rework of the core parts of the code, which are
> not
> > properly decoupled from each other and from other parts. This makes the
> > incremental approach borderline impossible. Developing in a new repo,
> > however, addresses this concern. As a bonus, we can also refactor the
> code,
> > introduce better decoupling, get rid of kernel context, and develop unit
> > tests (finally!).
> >
> > Basically, this proposal only affects the *process*, not the set of
> changes
> > we had discussed before. Ignite 3.0 is our unique chance to make things
> > right.
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:06 AM Kseniya Romanova <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Pavel, all the interesting points will be anyway published here in
> > English
> > > (as the principal "if it's not on devlist it doesn't happened" is still
> > > relevant). This is just a quick call for a group of developers. Later
> we
> > > can do a separate presentation of idea and discussion in English as we
> > did
> > > for the Ignite 3.0 draft of changes.
> > >
> > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Kseniya,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for scheduling this call.
> > > > Do you think we can switch to English if non-Russian speaking
> community
> > > > members decide to join?
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:32 PM Kseniya Romanova <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Let's do this community discussion open. Here's the link on zoom
> call
> > > in
> > > > > Russian for Friday 6 PM:
> > > > >
> https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/events/274360378/
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 12:49, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Time works for me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3 нояб. 2020 г., в 12:40, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > написал(а):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am up for the call. I will try to explain my reasoning in
> > greater
> > > > > > detail
> > > > > > > and will be glad to hear the concerns. Will this Friday, Nov
> 6th,
> > > > work?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 10:09, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Igniters, should we have a call for this topic?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 18:53, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > > > >> написал(а):
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> not intend to rewrite everything from scratch
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be moved to Ignite
> 3
> > > > > > >>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Alexey, thank you for the explanation, this addresses all of
> my
> > > > > > concerns.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:43 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> Hi, Igniters.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> * AFAIU, we need a new repo if we want to apply different
> > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >>>> pull requests,
> > > > > > >>>> otherwise I see no difference for myself.
> > > > > > >>>> E.g. make static analysis (do we have?), compile, styles,
> and
> > > > > javadoc
> > > > > > >>>> checks mandatory.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> I think that relaxed requirements here will lead to bad
> > product
> > > > > > quality.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> * Agree with Pavel, we should 'keep' integrations tests
> > somehow.
> > > > > > >>>> During active development tests will be broken most of time,
> > so,
> > > > > > >>>> I'd port them e.g. suite-by-suite once we will have a stable
> > and
> > > > > > >> featured
> > > > > > >>>> environment to run them and of course make test's code clear
> > and
> > > > > avoid
> > > > > > >>>> bad/non-relevant ones.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> * I like bottom-up approach.
> > > > > > >>>> With it we could make a better framework. I mean clear
> > component
> > > > > > >> lifecycle,
> > > > > > >>>> component wiring mechanics, general methods to approach core
> > > > > > components
> > > > > > >>>> such as exchange/communication
> > > > > > >>>> to avoid code mess like we have in ExchangeFuture with all
> > these
> > > > > > custom
> > > > > > >>>> callbacks for each component, interfaces like
> > > > > > >>>> PartitionsExchangeAware, IgniteChangeGlobalStateSupport and
> > > > > > >>>> a pack of
> > > > > > >>
> start/stop/onKernalStart/onPluginStart/onActivate/onDisconnected
> > > > > > >>>> and so on in various unexpected places.
> > > > > > >>>> Hope, we will be able to port most of the good code to the
> new
> > > > > > framework
> > > > > > >>>> version.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > >>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Nikolay, Pavel,
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback! First of all, I wanted to stress
> > that
> > > I
> > > > do
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > >>>>> intend to rewrite everything from scratch (I never used
> this
> > > > > phrase).
> > > > > > >>>> There
> > > > > > >>>>> are significant parts of code that would be moved with
> > minimal
> > > > > > >>>>> modifications. Second, I never said that we will get rid of
> > the
> > > > old
> > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > >>>>> codebase. Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be moved
> > to
> > > > > > Ignite 3
> > > > > > >>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> My point is that for some parts of the code a clean
> bottom-up
> > > > > > >>>>> implementation will be cheaper in many ways. Let me give
> you
> > a
> > > > few
> > > > > > >>>> concrete
> > > > > > >>>>> examples:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>  - I think no one can object that we need a cleanly
> separated
> > > > > > >>>> persistence
> > > > > > >>>>>  layer for Ignite. There is a very raw draft IEP for this
> > > > already.
> > > > > On
> > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>  other hand, I think we also can agree that we need a
> > > split-brain
> > > > > > >>>>> resistant
> > > > > > >>>>>  replication protocol for caches. There is also an IEP for
> > > this.
> > > > > > >>>> Neither
> > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>  the changes is a good fit for 2.x because they are likely
> to
> > > > > > >> introduce
> > > > > > >>>>>  breaking changes in the persistence layer, configuration
> and
> > > > > > >> behavior.
> > > > > > >>>>>  Additionally, these components are now tightly coupled, so
> > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> no
> > > > > > >>>>> way
> > > > > > >>>>>  these two changes can be implemented in parallel and then
> > > merged
> > > > > > >>>>> together
> > > > > > >>>>>  easily. So what we will end up with is having to implement
> > > these
> > > > > > >>>> changes
> > > > > > >>>>>  sequentially, fixing all existing tests twice, and
> > essentially
> > > > > > >>>> throwing
> > > > > > >>>>>  away half of the work done because the other part of the
> > > change
> > > > is
> > > > > > >>>>>  re-implemented
> > > > > > >>>>>  - Similar example goes with getting rid of
> > > IgniteInternalFuture
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >>>>>  replacing it with CompletableFuture, and any other change
> > that
> > > > > > >> touches
> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>  asynchronous part of the code.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Third, I do not see how this choice affects the UX of
> Ignite.
> > > The
> > > > > end
> > > > > > >>>> user
> > > > > > >>>>> experience must be fixed in the IEP regardless of the
> > > development
> > > > > > >> process
> > > > > > >>>>> and the fact that we have gaps in this area in Ignite 2.x
> > just
> > > > > > confirms
> > > > > > >>>>> that.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Pavel, agree that a repo/branch is a technicality, I guess
> if
> > > > > > >>>> reformulate,
> > > > > > >>>>> my point is that we might agree to have a single
> development
> > > > master
> > > > > > >>>> branch
> > > > > > >>>>> with 'disassembled' end-to-end functionality for some
> period
> > of
> > > > > time
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >>>>> speed up development, and re-assemble the core features
> after
> > > > > having
> > > > > > >>>>> submodules tested independently.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > > > >>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> > > > > > >>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper support,
> > > etc.
> > > > > > >>>>> This is not very specific. In the end, resources are
> limited
> > > and
> > > > we
> > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > >>>>> not be able to drive both tracks simultaneously, especially
> > > > after a
> > > > > > >>>> couple
> > > > > > >>>>> of features having been implemented for Ignite 3.0. If
> there
> > > are
> > > > > > indeed
> > > > > > >>>>> some major changes that we want to do in Ignite 2.x instead
> > of
> > > > > > putting
> > > > > > >>>>> effort into 3.0 - let's discuss them. I am just not aware
> of
> > > any,
> > > > > > >> that's
> > > > > > >>>>> why I am eager to move forward with Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x without
> > > > breaking
> > > > > > >>>> backward
> > > > > > >>>>> compatibility.
> > > > > > >>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with all
> it’s
> > > > > issues.
> > > > > > >>>>> These changes will be covered by end-to-end tests and
> > migrated
> > > to
> > > > > > >> Ignite
> > > > > > >>>>> 3.0, so I see no issues here.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Finally, Anton & Nikolay
> > > > > > >>>>> I do not have an estimate for this simply because the
> > activity
> > > is
> > > > > > >>>>> community-driven and it depends on the number of people
> > willing
> > > > to
> > > > > > >>>>> contribute. With the current pace, I would hope to have an
> RC
> > > of
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >>>> 3.0
> > > > > > >>>>> to be ready by the end of 2021. My gut feeling is that by
> > > moving
> > > > > with
> > > > > > >>>>> incremental changes, we will not be able to implement even
> > half
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>>> wishlist by that time.
> > > > > > >>>>> I doubt that releasing several major releases with breaking
> > > > changes
> > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > >>>>> make Ignite users happy either because each upgrade will
> cost
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >>>> users
> > > > > > >>>>> money, so the fewer major versions we release, the better.
> > Thus
> > > > my
> > > > > > wish
> > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>> include all breaking changes in one release.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> I'll be now quiet for a while, let's see what other
> community
> > > > > members
> > > > > > >>>>> think.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> 1. Rewriting from scratch is never a good idea.
> > > > > > >>>>>> We don't want to follow the path of Netscape and lose all
> > our
> > > > > users
> > > > > > >>>>>> by the time we have a working 3.0 [1]
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> 2. Not sure about new repo - seems like some pain and no
> > gain,
> > > > > > what's
> > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>> problem with a branch?
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> 3. We should keep existing integration tests when
> possible.
> > > > > > >>>>>> We have accumulated a lot of edge case knowledge over the
> > > years,
> > > > > > >>>>>> it is not a good idea to send all of that down the drain.
> > > > > > >>>>>> Yes, integration tests are slow, but they are the most
> > > valuable.
> > > > > > >>>>>> I think we can move more stuff into nightly runs and have
> a
> > > fast
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >>>>> modern
> > > > > > >>>>>> basic suite.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Alexey, you are much more familiar with the Ignite core
> > > codebase
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > >>>>> most
> > > > > > >>>>>> of us,
> > > > > > >>>>>> can you please explain in more detail which particular
> > > feature,
> > > > in
> > > > > > >> your
> > > > > > >>>>>> opinion,
> > > > > > >>>>>> mandates this "start from scratch" approach?
> > > > > > >>>>>> Is it really not possible at all to follow a less radical
> > way?
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:25 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> I think that «rewriting from scratch» approach has a high
> > > risk
> > > > to
> > > > > > >>>> make
> > > > > > >>>>>> new
> > > > > > >>>>>>> features unusable.
> > > > > > >>>>>>> At the time Ignite2 was started no-one wants to do bad UX
> > or
> > > > bad
> > > > > > >>>>>> features.
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Nevertheless, it happen.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> I think we can avoid it with the Ignite3 and successors
> if
> > we
> > > > > will
> > > > > > >>>> move
> > > > > > >>>>>>> step by step without keeping backward compatibility
> > > > > > >>>>>>> With the step by step approach, we can focus on each
> > > component
> > > > > > >>>>>> separately.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement for
> Ignite
> > > 2.x?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> support,
> > > etc.
> > > > > > >>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x without
> > > > breaking
> > > > > > >>>>>> backward
> > > > > > >>>>>>> compatibility.
> > > > > > >>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with all
> it’s
> > > > > issues.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 14:09, Anton Vinogradov <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > > > >>>>> написал(а):
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Alexey,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Do we have any estimates of how fast we'll be able to
> gain
> > > > > > >>>>>>> production-ready
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> AI 3.0 in case of a "new repo" choice?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:01 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement for
> Ignite
> > > > 2.x?
> > > > > I
> > > > > > >>>>> think
> > > > > > >>>>>>> once
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> we commence working on Ignite 3.0, we should gradually
> > > cease
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>>>>> activity
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> on Ignite 2.x to mere bugfixes because such parallel
> > > > > development
> > > > > > >>>>> will
> > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> overwhelming regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:38, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >>>>> :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> To be clear:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest creating a new repository for Ignite
> > 3.0
> > > > > > >>>>> (perhaps, a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> clean branch, but a new repo looks nicer to me) and a
> > new
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >>>>> 3.0
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TeamCity project.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 for new Team City project.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 for new branch for Ignite3.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -1 for new repo.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:35, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > >>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think it will hurt our project more than help.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Developing new features for 2 separate branches with
> > the
> > > > > > >>>> different
> > > > > > >>>>>>> APIs
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and internal structure is overwhelming
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should relax a bit requirements for Ignite3?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should move step by step and make Ignite3
> with
> > > new
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> configuration than Ignite4 with new transactions, etc?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:14, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to pitch a rather radical idea regarding
> the
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >>>> 3.0
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> development which has occurred to me some time ago.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We already have several IEPs targeted to Ignite 3.0
> > > which
> > > > > > imply
> > > > > > >>>>>> major
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> changes to the codebase (the change in replication
> > > > protocol
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >>>>>> thus
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> transactions, change in binary format, updated
> > > > metastorage,
> > > > > > >>>> etc).
> > > > > > >>>>>> We
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> planned significant changes in public APIs:
> > > configuration
> > > > > > >>>> format
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> change,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> improvements in cache APIs, SQL APIs, transaction
> mode
> > > > > rework.
> > > > > > >>>>> The
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wishlist
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of changes for Ignite 3.0 is huge.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I was wondering whether it makes sense to try to
> > > > change
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>>> old
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> codebase, or start with a new baseline and move old
> > > pieces
> > > > > of
> > > > > > >>>>> code
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not require significant rework. Personally, I would
> go
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>>>>> second
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> option for the following reasons:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We have a chance to shift the development paradigm
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>>>> project
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> introduce the practice of true unit-tests. In the
> new
> > > > > baseline
> > > > > > >>>> at
> > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> beginning there will be no ability to run an
> > end-to-end
> > > > > > >>>> scenario,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> thus
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> will be forced to write unit-tests. So far, such
> > > practice
> > > > > was
> > > > > > >>>>> hard
> > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> implement because of tight coupling between Ignite
> > > > > components
> > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> inability
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to instantiate components without an instance of
> > > > > > KernalContext.
> > > > > > >>>>> For
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> example, we should be able to thoroughly test
> internal
> > > > > > >>>>> primitives,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> such as
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol (without actual communication),
> > > > > > >>>> distributed
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> metastorage contracts, persistence layer, etc.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will significantly reduce the development cycle
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>>>>> beginning
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (right now the RunAll takes two hours of
> astronomical
> > > time
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > >>>>>> empty
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TC;
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in the new approach developer will be able to run
> ALL
> > > > tests
> > > > > > >>>>> locally
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> matter of minutes)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We can get rid of TC bot and enforce green TC by
> > > > > integrating
> > > > > > >>>> TC
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> build
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> results with GitHub PRs (the same way Travis is
> > > currently
> > > > > > >>>>>> integrated
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to PR
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> check). We should restrict PR merge without a TC
> check
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will still have to re-write all tests, but only
> > > once.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > >>>> we
> > > > > > >>>>>> try
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> modify the old codebase, we would need to modify all
> > the
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> every
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> major change (public API change, configuration
> change)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will have fewer conflicts when working
> together.
> > > For
> > > > > > >>>>> example,
> > > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot imagine how one would merge two changes of
> > > getting
> > > > > rid
> > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteFuture and changes in replication protocol,
> for
> > > > > example
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Technically, I would suggest creating a new
> repository
> > > for
> > > > > > >>>> Ignite
> > > > > > >>>>>> 3.0
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a new clean branch, but a new repo looks
> > nicer
> > > > to
> > > > > > me)
> > > > > > >>>>>> and a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3.0 TeamCity project.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> While it may seem quite radical, I do believe that
> > this
> > > > > > >>>> approach
> > > > > > >>>>>> will
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> give
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> us more benefits than trying to make such major
> > changes
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> existing
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. If needed, let's schedule a discord chat
> > like
> > > > > before
> > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> discuss
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> this.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > > >>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > >>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Sergey Chugunov]

Igniters,

I thought over Friday meeting ideas and concerns and summarized them in
these three points:


   1. *Components design unification approach.* New proposed components
   will be developed by different contributors, but they need to be unified
   and should integrate with each other easily. To ensure that I suggest
   calling an architecture group that will create design guidelines for all
   components and high-level overview of overall architecture. How code is
   split into components, what are component boundaries, how component
   lifecycle works and what are its interfaces - all these and other questions
   should be covered.

   2. *Scope management.* Apache 3.0 should be implemented within a
   reasonable time, so we need some procedure to decide whether a particular
   feature should be dropped from the scope of 3.0 and postponed to 3.1
   release. To do so I suggest to range all features by two parameters:
   criticality for 3.0 and amount of breaking changes. 3.0 scope should
   include features of high criticality AND features with a big amount of
   breaking changes. All other features can be made optional.

   3. *Development transparency.* Development of all components should be
   made as transparent for everyone as possible. Any contributor should be
   able to look over any component at any stage of development. To achieve
   this I suggest to create a separate public repository dedicated for 3.0
   development. It will make the code available for everyone but when
   development of 3.0 is done we won't loose any stars of our current
   repository as we merge dev repo into main one and drop dev.

Do these ideas make sense to you? Are there any concerns not covered by
these suggestions?

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:36 PM Kseniya Romanova <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Here are the slides from Alexey Goncharuk. Let's think this over and
> continue on Monday:
>
> https://go.gridgain.com/rs/491-TWR-806/images/Ignite_3_Plans_and_development_process.pdf
>
> чт, 5 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:13, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > Should we perform cleanup work before (r)evolutional changes?
> > My huge proposal is to get rid of things which we don't need anyway
> > - local caches,
> > - strange tx modes,
> > - code overcomplexity because of RollingUpgrade feature never attended at
> > AI,
> > - etc,
> > before choosing the way.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:31 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Ksenia, thanks for scheduling this on such short notice!
> > >
> > > As for the original topic, I do support Alexey's idea. We're not going
> to
> > > rewrite anything from scratch, as most of the components are going to
> be
> > > moved as-is or with minimal modifications. However, the changes that
> are
> > > proposed imply serious rework of the core parts of the code, which are
> > not
> > > properly decoupled from each other and from other parts. This makes the
> > > incremental approach borderline impossible. Developing in a new repo,
> > > however, addresses this concern. As a bonus, we can also refactor the
> > code,
> > > introduce better decoupling, get rid of kernel context, and develop
> unit
> > > tests (finally!).
> > >
> > > Basically, this proposal only affects the *process*, not the set of
> > changes
> > > we had discussed before. Ignite 3.0 is our unique chance to make things
> > > right.
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:06 AM Kseniya Romanova <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Pavel, all the interesting points will be anyway published here in
> > > English
> > > > (as the principal "if it's not on devlist it doesn't happened" is
> still
> > > > relevant). This is just a quick call for a group of developers. Later
> > we
> > > > can do a separate presentation of idea and discussion in English as
> we
> > > did
> > > > for the Ignite 3.0 draft of changes.
> > > >
> > > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > Kseniya,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for scheduling this call.
> > > > > Do you think we can switch to English if non-Russian speaking
> > community
> > > > > members decide to join?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:32 PM Kseniya Romanova <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Let's do this community discussion open. Here's the link on zoom
> > call
> > > > in
> > > > > > Russian for Friday 6 PM:
> > > > > >
> > https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/events/274360378/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 12:49, Nikolay Izhikov <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Time works for me.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3 нояб. 2020 г., в 12:40, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > написал(а):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am up for the call. I will try to explain my reasoning in
> > > greater
> > > > > > > detail
> > > > > > > > and will be glad to hear the concerns. Will this Friday, Nov
> > 6th,
> > > > > work?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 10:09, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Igniters, should we have a call for this topic?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 18:53, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > > > >> написал(а):
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> not intend to rewrite everything from scratch
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be moved to
> Ignite
> > 3
> > > > > > > >>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Alexey, thank you for the explanation, this addresses all
> of
> > my
> > > > > > > concerns.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:43 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Hi, Igniters.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> * AFAIU, we need a new repo if we want to apply different
> > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >>>> pull requests,
> > > > > > > >>>> otherwise I see no difference for myself.
> > > > > > > >>>> E.g. make static analysis (do we have?), compile, styles,
> > and
> > > > > > javadoc
> > > > > > > >>>> checks mandatory.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> I think that relaxed requirements here will lead to bad
> > > product
> > > > > > > quality.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> * Agree with Pavel, we should 'keep' integrations tests
> > > somehow.
> > > > > > > >>>> During active development tests will be broken most of
> time,
> > > so,
> > > > > > > >>>> I'd port them e.g. suite-by-suite once we will have a
> stable
> > > and
> > > > > > > >> featured
> > > > > > > >>>> environment to run them and of course make test's code
> clear
> > > and
> > > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > >>>> bad/non-relevant ones.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> * I like bottom-up approach.
> > > > > > > >>>> With it we could make a better framework. I mean clear
> > > component
> > > > > > > >> lifecycle,
> > > > > > > >>>> component wiring mechanics, general methods to approach
> core
> > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > >>>> such as exchange/communication
> > > > > > > >>>> to avoid code mess like we have in ExchangeFuture with all
> > > these
> > > > > > > custom
> > > > > > > >>>> callbacks for each component, interfaces like
> > > > > > > >>>> PartitionsExchangeAware, IgniteChangeGlobalStateSupport
> and
> > > > > > > >>>> a pack of
> > > > > > > >>
> > start/stop/onKernalStart/onPluginStart/onActivate/onDisconnected
> > > > > > > >>>> and so on in various unexpected places.
> > > > > > > >>>> Hope, we will be able to port most of the good code to the
> > new
> > > > > > > framework
> > > > > > > >>>> version.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > >>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Nikolay, Pavel,
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback! First of all, I wanted to stress
> > > that
> > > > I
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >>>>> intend to rewrite everything from scratch (I never used
> > this
> > > > > > phrase).
> > > > > > > >>>> There
> > > > > > > >>>>> are significant parts of code that would be moved with
> > > minimal
> > > > > > > >>>>> modifications. Second, I never said that we will get rid
> of
> > > the
> > > > > old
> > > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > > >>>>> codebase. Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be
> moved
> > > to
> > > > > > > Ignite 3
> > > > > > > >>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> My point is that for some parts of the code a clean
> > bottom-up
> > > > > > > >>>>> implementation will be cheaper in many ways. Let me give
> > you
> > > a
> > > > > few
> > > > > > > >>>> concrete
> > > > > > > >>>>> examples:
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>  - I think no one can object that we need a cleanly
> > separated
> > > > > > > >>>> persistence
> > > > > > > >>>>>  layer for Ignite. There is a very raw draft IEP for this
> > > > > already.
> > > > > > On
> > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>  other hand, I think we also can agree that we need a
> > > > split-brain
> > > > > > > >>>>> resistant
> > > > > > > >>>>>  replication protocol for caches. There is also an IEP
> for
> > > > this.
> > > > > > > >>>> Neither
> > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > >>>>>  the changes is a good fit for 2.x because they are
> likely
> > to
> > > > > > > >> introduce
> > > > > > > >>>>>  breaking changes in the persistence layer, configuration
> > and
> > > > > > > >> behavior.
> > > > > > > >>>>>  Additionally, these components are now tightly coupled,
> so
> > > > there
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> no
> > > > > > > >>>>> way
> > > > > > > >>>>>  these two changes can be implemented in parallel and
> then
> > > > merged
> > > > > > > >>>>> together
> > > > > > > >>>>>  easily. So what we will end up with is having to
> implement
> > > > these
> > > > > > > >>>> changes
> > > > > > > >>>>>  sequentially, fixing all existing tests twice, and
> > > essentially
> > > > > > > >>>> throwing
> > > > > > > >>>>>  away half of the work done because the other part of the
> > > > change
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > >>>>>  re-implemented
> > > > > > > >>>>>  - Similar example goes with getting rid of
> > > > IgniteInternalFuture
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>>>>  replacing it with CompletableFuture, and any other
> change
> > > that
> > > > > > > >> touches
> > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>  asynchronous part of the code.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Third, I do not see how this choice affects the UX of
> > Ignite.
> > > > The
> > > > > > end
> > > > > > > >>>> user
> > > > > > > >>>>> experience must be fixed in the IEP regardless of the
> > > > development
> > > > > > > >> process
> > > > > > > >>>>> and the fact that we have gaps in this area in Ignite 2.x
> > > just
> > > > > > > confirms
> > > > > > > >>>>> that.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Pavel, agree that a repo/branch is a technicality, I
> guess
> > if
> > > > > > > >>>> reformulate,
> > > > > > > >>>>> my point is that we might agree to have a single
> > development
> > > > > master
> > > > > > > >>>> branch
> > > > > > > >>>>> with 'disassembled' end-to-end functionality for some
> > period
> > > of
> > > > > > time
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>>>> speed up development, and re-assemble the core features
> > after
> > > > > > having
> > > > > > > >>>>> submodules tested independently.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > > > > >>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> support,
> > > > etc.
> > > > > > > >>>>> This is not very specific. In the end, resources are
> > limited
> > > > and
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > >>>>> not be able to drive both tracks simultaneously,
> especially
> > > > > after a
> > > > > > > >>>> couple
> > > > > > > >>>>> of features having been implemented for Ignite 3.0. If
> > there
> > > > are
> > > > > > > indeed
> > > > > > > >>>>> some major changes that we want to do in Ignite 2.x
> instead
> > > of
> > > > > > > putting
> > > > > > > >>>>> effort into 3.0 - let's discuss them. I am just not aware
> > of
> > > > any,
> > > > > > > >> that's
> > > > > > > >>>>> why I am eager to move forward with Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x without
> > > > > breaking
> > > > > > > >>>> backward
> > > > > > > >>>>> compatibility.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with all
> > it’s
> > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > >>>>> These changes will be covered by end-to-end tests and
> > > migrated
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> Ignite
> > > > > > > >>>>> 3.0, so I see no issues here.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Finally, Anton & Nikolay
> > > > > > > >>>>> I do not have an estimate for this simply because the
> > > activity
> > > > is
> > > > > > > >>>>> community-driven and it depends on the number of people
> > > willing
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>>>> contribute. With the current pace, I would hope to have
> an
> > RC
> > > > of
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >>>> 3.0
> > > > > > > >>>>> to be ready by the end of 2021. My gut feeling is that by
> > > > moving
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >>>>> incremental changes, we will not be able to implement
> even
> > > half
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>> wishlist by that time.
> > > > > > > >>>>> I doubt that releasing several major releases with
> breaking
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > >>>>> make Ignite users happy either because each upgrade will
> > cost
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >>>> users
> > > > > > > >>>>> money, so the fewer major versions we release, the
> better.
> > > Thus
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > wish
> > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>> include all breaking changes in one release.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> I'll be now quiet for a while, let's see what other
> > community
> > > > > > members
> > > > > > > >>>>> think.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 1. Rewriting from scratch is never a good idea.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> We don't want to follow the path of Netscape and lose
> all
> > > our
> > > > > > users
> > > > > > > >>>>>> by the time we have a working 3.0 [1]
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 2. Not sure about new repo - seems like some pain and no
> > > gain,
> > > > > > > what's
> > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> problem with a branch?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 3. We should keep existing integration tests when
> > possible.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> We have accumulated a lot of edge case knowledge over
> the
> > > > years,
> > > > > > > >>>>>> it is not a good idea to send all of that down the
> drain.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes, integration tests are slow, but they are the most
> > > > valuable.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I think we can move more stuff into nightly runs and
> have
> > a
> > > > fast
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>>>> modern
> > > > > > > >>>>>> basic suite.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Alexey, you are much more familiar with the Ignite core
> > > > codebase
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > >>>>> most
> > > > > > > >>>>>> of us,
> > > > > > > >>>>>> can you please explain in more detail which particular
> > > > feature,
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> your
> > > > > > > >>>>>> opinion,
> > > > > > > >>>>>> mandates this "start from scratch" approach?
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Is it really not possible at all to follow a less
> radical
> > > way?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:25 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I think that «rewriting from scratch» approach has a
> high
> > > > risk
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>>> make
> > > > > > > >>>>>> new
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> features unusable.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> At the time Ignite2 was started no-one wants to do bad
> UX
> > > or
> > > > > bad
> > > > > > > >>>>>> features.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Nevertheless, it happen.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I think we can avoid it with the Ignite3 and successors
> > if
> > > we
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >>>> move
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> step by step without keeping backward compatibility
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> With the step by step approach, we can focus on each
> > > > component
> > > > > > > >>>>>> separately.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement for
> > Ignite
> > > > 2.x?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> > support,
> > > > etc.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
> without
> > > > > breaking
> > > > > > > >>>>>> backward
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> compatibility.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with all
> > it’s
> > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 14:09, Anton Vinogradov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>>> написал(а):
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Alexey,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Do we have any estimates of how fast we'll be able to
> > gain
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> production-ready
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> AI 3.0 in case of a "new repo" choice?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:01 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement for
> > Ignite
> > > > > 2.x?
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >>>>> think
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> once
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> we commence working on Ignite 3.0, we should
> gradually
> > > > cease
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> activity
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> on Ignite 2.x to mere bugfixes because such parallel
> > > > > > development
> > > > > > > >>>>> will
> > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> overwhelming regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:38, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >>>>> :
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> To be clear:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest creating a new repository for
> Ignite
> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > >>>>> (perhaps, a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> clean branch, but a new repo looks nicer to me) and
> a
> > > new
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >>>>> 3.0
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TeamCity project.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 for new Team City project.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 for new branch for Ignite3.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -1 for new repo.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:35, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > >>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think it will hurt our project more than help.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Developing new features for 2 separate branches
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> different
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> APIs
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and internal structure is overwhelming
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should relax a bit requirements for
> Ignite3?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should move step by step and make Ignite3
> > with
> > > > new
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> configuration than Ignite4 with new transactions,
> etc?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:14, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to pitch a rather radical idea regarding
> > the
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >>>> 3.0
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> development which has occurred to me some time
> ago.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We already have several IEPs targeted to Ignite
> 3.0
> > > > which
> > > > > > > imply
> > > > > > > >>>>>> major
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> changes to the codebase (the change in replication
> > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>>>>> thus
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> transactions, change in binary format, updated
> > > > > metastorage,
> > > > > > > >>>> etc).
> > > > > > > >>>>>> We
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> planned significant changes in public APIs:
> > > > configuration
> > > > > > > >>>> format
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> change,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> improvements in cache APIs, SQL APIs, transaction
> > mode
> > > > > > rework.
> > > > > > > >>>>> The
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wishlist
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of changes for Ignite 3.0 is huge.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I was wondering whether it makes sense to try
> to
> > > > > change
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>> old
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> codebase, or start with a new baseline and move
> old
> > > > pieces
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >>>>> code
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not require significant rework. Personally, I
> would
> > go
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> second
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> option for the following reasons:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We have a chance to shift the development
> paradigm
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>> project
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> introduce the practice of true unit-tests. In the
> > new
> > > > > > baseline
> > > > > > > >>>> at
> > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> beginning there will be no ability to run an
> > > end-to-end
> > > > > > > >>>> scenario,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> thus
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> will be forced to write unit-tests. So far, such
> > > > practice
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > >>>>> hard
> > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> implement because of tight coupling between Ignite
> > > > > > components
> > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> inability
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to instantiate components without an instance of
> > > > > > > KernalContext.
> > > > > > > >>>>> For
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> example, we should be able to thoroughly test
> > internal
> > > > > > > >>>>> primitives,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> such as
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol (without actual
> communication),
> > > > > > > >>>> distributed
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> metastorage contracts, persistence layer, etc.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will significantly reduce the development
> cycle
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> beginning
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (right now the RunAll takes two hours of
> > astronomical
> > > > time
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >>>>>> empty
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TC;
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in the new approach developer will be able to run
> > ALL
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > > >>>>> locally
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> matter of minutes)
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We can get rid of TC bot and enforce green TC by
> > > > > > integrating
> > > > > > > >>>> TC
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> build
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> results with GitHub PRs (the same way Travis is
> > > > currently
> > > > > > > >>>>>> integrated
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to PR
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> check). We should restrict PR merge without a TC
> > check
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will still have to re-write all tests, but
> only
> > > > once.
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > > >>>> we
> > > > > > > >>>>>> try
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> modify the old codebase, we would need to modify
> all
> > > the
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> every
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> major change (public API change, configuration
> > change)
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will have fewer conflicts when working
> > together.
> > > > For
> > > > > > > >>>>> example,
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot imagine how one would merge two changes of
> > > > getting
> > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteFuture and changes in replication protocol,
> > for
> > > > > > example
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Technically, I would suggest creating a new
> > repository
> > > > for
> > > > > > > >>>> Ignite
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 3.0
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a new clean branch, but a new repo looks
> > > nicer
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > me)
> > > > > > > >>>>>> and a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3.0 TeamCity project.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> While it may seem quite radical, I do believe that
> > > this
> > > > > > > >>>> approach
> > > > > > > >>>>>> will
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> give
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> us more benefits than trying to make such major
> > > changes
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> existing
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. If needed, let's schedule a discord chat
> > > like
> > > > > > before
> > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> discuss
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> this.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > > >>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Alexei Scherbakov]

Makes sense to me.

вт, 10 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:47, Sergey Chugunov <[hidden email]>:

> Igniters,
>
> I thought over Friday meeting ideas and concerns and summarized them in
> these three points:
>
>
>    1. *Components design unification approach.* New proposed components
>    will be developed by different contributors, but they need to be unified
>    and should integrate with each other easily. To ensure that I suggest
>    calling an architecture group that will create design guidelines for all
>    components and high-level overview of overall architecture. How code is
>    split into components, what are component boundaries, how component
>    lifecycle works and what are its interfaces - all these and other
> questions
>    should be covered.
>
>    2. *Scope management.* Apache 3.0 should be implemented within a
>    reasonable time, so we need some procedure to decide whether a
> particular
>    feature should be dropped from the scope of 3.0 and postponed to 3.1
>    release. To do so I suggest to range all features by two parameters:
>    criticality for 3.0 and amount of breaking changes. 3.0 scope should
>    include features of high criticality AND features with a big amount of
>    breaking changes. All other features can be made optional.
>
>    3. *Development transparency.* Development of all components should be
>    made as transparent for everyone as possible. Any contributor should be
>    able to look over any component at any stage of development. To achieve
>    this I suggest to create a separate public repository dedicated for 3.0
>    development. It will make the code available for everyone but when
>    development of 3.0 is done we won't loose any stars of our current
>    repository as we merge dev repo into main one and drop dev.
>
> Do these ideas make sense to you? Are there any concerns not covered by
> these suggestions?
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:36 PM Kseniya Romanova <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Here are the slides from Alexey Goncharuk. Let's think this over and
> > continue on Monday:
> >
> >
> https://go.gridgain.com/rs/491-TWR-806/images/Ignite_3_Plans_and_development_process.pdf
> >
> > чт, 5 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:13, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > Should we perform cleanup work before (r)evolutional changes?
> > > My huge proposal is to get rid of things which we don't need anyway
> > > - local caches,
> > > - strange tx modes,
> > > - code overcomplexity because of RollingUpgrade feature never attended
> at
> > > AI,
> > > - etc,
> > > before choosing the way.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:31 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ksenia, thanks for scheduling this on such short notice!
> > > >
> > > > As for the original topic, I do support Alexey's idea. We're not
> going
> > to
> > > > rewrite anything from scratch, as most of the components are going to
> > be
> > > > moved as-is or with minimal modifications. However, the changes that
> > are
> > > > proposed imply serious rework of the core parts of the code, which
> are
> > > not
> > > > properly decoupled from each other and from other parts. This makes
> the
> > > > incremental approach borderline impossible. Developing in a new repo,
> > > > however, addresses this concern. As a bonus, we can also refactor the
> > > code,
> > > > introduce better decoupling, get rid of kernel context, and develop
> > unit
> > > > tests (finally!).
> > > >
> > > > Basically, this proposal only affects the *process*, not the set of
> > > changes
> > > > we had discussed before. Ignite 3.0 is our unique chance to make
> things
> > > > right.
> > > >
> > > > -Val
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:06 AM Kseniya Romanova <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Pavel, all the interesting points will be anyway published here in
> > > > English
> > > > > (as the principal "if it's not on devlist it doesn't happened" is
> > still
> > > > > relevant). This is just a quick call for a group of developers.
> Later
> > > we
> > > > > can do a separate presentation of idea and discussion in English as
> > we
> > > > did
> > > > > for the Ignite 3.0 draft of changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Kseniya,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for scheduling this call.
> > > > > > Do you think we can switch to English if non-Russian speaking
> > > community
> > > > > > members decide to join?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:32 PM Kseniya Romanova <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's do this community discussion open. Here's the link on
> zoom
> > > call
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > Russian for Friday 6 PM:
> > > > > > >
> > > https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/events/274360378/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 12:49, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Time works for me.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 3 нояб. 2020 г., в 12:40, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > написал(а):
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am up for the call. I will try to explain my reasoning in
> > > > greater
> > > > > > > > detail
> > > > > > > > > and will be glad to hear the concerns. Will this Friday,
> Nov
> > > 6th,
> > > > > > work?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 10:09, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Igniters, should we have a call for this topic?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 18:53, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> написал(а):
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> not intend to rewrite everything from scratch
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be moved to
> > Ignite
> > > 3
> > > > > > > > >>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Alexey, thank you for the explanation, this addresses all
> > of
> > > my
> > > > > > > > concerns.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:43 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Hi, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> * AFAIU, we need a new repo if we want to apply
> different
> > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >>>> pull requests,
> > > > > > > > >>>> otherwise I see no difference for myself.
> > > > > > > > >>>> E.g. make static analysis (do we have?), compile,
> styles,
> > > and
> > > > > > > javadoc
> > > > > > > > >>>> checks mandatory.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> I think that relaxed requirements here will lead to bad
> > > > product
> > > > > > > > quality.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> * Agree with Pavel, we should 'keep' integrations tests
> > > > somehow.
> > > > > > > > >>>> During active development tests will be broken most of
> > time,
> > > > so,
> > > > > > > > >>>> I'd port them e.g. suite-by-suite once we will have a
> > stable
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> featured
> > > > > > > > >>>> environment to run them and of course make test's code
> > clear
> > > > and
> > > > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > >>>> bad/non-relevant ones.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> * I like bottom-up approach.
> > > > > > > > >>>> With it we could make a better framework. I mean clear
> > > > component
> > > > > > > > >> lifecycle,
> > > > > > > > >>>> component wiring mechanics, general methods to approach
> > core
> > > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > > >>>> such as exchange/communication
> > > > > > > > >>>> to avoid code mess like we have in ExchangeFuture with
> all
> > > > these
> > > > > > > > custom
> > > > > > > > >>>> callbacks for each component, interfaces like
> > > > > > > > >>>> PartitionsExchangeAware, IgniteChangeGlobalStateSupport
> > and
> > > > > > > > >>>> a pack of
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > start/stop/onKernalStart/onPluginStart/onActivate/onDisconnected
> > > > > > > > >>>> and so on in various unexpected places.
> > > > > > > > >>>> Hope, we will be able to port most of the good code to
> the
> > > new
> > > > > > > > framework
> > > > > > > > >>>> version.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > >>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Nikolay, Pavel,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback! First of all, I wanted to
> stress
> > > > that
> > > > > I
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >>>>> intend to rewrite everything from scratch (I never used
> > > this
> > > > > > > phrase).
> > > > > > > > >>>> There
> > > > > > > > >>>>> are significant parts of code that would be moved with
> > > > minimal
> > > > > > > > >>>>> modifications. Second, I never said that we will get
> rid
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > > > >>>>> codebase. Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be
> > moved
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > Ignite 3
> > > > > > > > >>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> My point is that for some parts of the code a clean
> > > bottom-up
> > > > > > > > >>>>> implementation will be cheaper in many ways. Let me
> give
> > > you
> > > > a
> > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > >>>> concrete
> > > > > > > > >>>>> examples:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>  - I think no one can object that we need a cleanly
> > > separated
> > > > > > > > >>>> persistence
> > > > > > > > >>>>>  layer for Ignite. There is a very raw draft IEP for
> this
> > > > > > already.
> > > > > > > On
> > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>  other hand, I think we also can agree that we need a
> > > > > split-brain
> > > > > > > > >>>>> resistant
> > > > > > > > >>>>>  replication protocol for caches. There is also an IEP
> > for
> > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > >>>> Neither
> > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>  the changes is a good fit for 2.x because they are
> > likely
> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> introduce
> > > > > > > > >>>>>  breaking changes in the persistence layer,
> configuration
> > > and
> > > > > > > > >> behavior.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>  Additionally, these components are now tightly
> coupled,
> > so
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> no
> > > > > > > > >>>>> way
> > > > > > > > >>>>>  these two changes can be implemented in parallel and
> > then
> > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > >>>>> together
> > > > > > > > >>>>>  easily. So what we will end up with is having to
> > implement
> > > > > these
> > > > > > > > >>>> changes
> > > > > > > > >>>>>  sequentially, fixing all existing tests twice, and
> > > > essentially
> > > > > > > > >>>> throwing
> > > > > > > > >>>>>  away half of the work done because the other part of
> the
> > > > > change
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>  re-implemented
> > > > > > > > >>>>>  - Similar example goes with getting rid of
> > > > > IgniteInternalFuture
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>  replacing it with CompletableFuture, and any other
> > change
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> touches
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>  asynchronous part of the code.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Third, I do not see how this choice affects the UX of
> > > Ignite.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > end
> > > > > > > > >>>> user
> > > > > > > > >>>>> experience must be fixed in the IEP regardless of the
> > > > > development
> > > > > > > > >> process
> > > > > > > > >>>>> and the fact that we have gaps in this area in Ignite
> 2.x
> > > > just
> > > > > > > > confirms
> > > > > > > > >>>>> that.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Pavel, agree that a repo/branch is a technicality, I
> > guess
> > > if
> > > > > > > > >>>> reformulate,
> > > > > > > > >>>>> my point is that we might agree to have a single
> > > development
> > > > > > master
> > > > > > > > >>>> branch
> > > > > > > > >>>>> with 'disassembled' end-to-end functionality for some
> > > period
> > > > of
> > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>>> speed up development, and re-assemble the core features
> > > after
> > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > >>>>> submodules tested independently.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> > support,
> > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> This is not very specific. In the end, resources are
> > > limited
> > > > > and
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > >>>>> not be able to drive both tracks simultaneously,
> > especially
> > > > > > after a
> > > > > > > > >>>> couple
> > > > > > > > >>>>> of features having been implemented for Ignite 3.0. If
> > > there
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > indeed
> > > > > > > > >>>>> some major changes that we want to do in Ignite 2.x
> > instead
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > putting
> > > > > > > > >>>>> effort into 3.0 - let's discuss them. I am just not
> aware
> > > of
> > > > > any,
> > > > > > > > >> that's
> > > > > > > > >>>>> why I am eager to move forward with Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
> without
> > > > > > breaking
> > > > > > > > >>>> backward
> > > > > > > > >>>>> compatibility.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with all
> > > it’s
> > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> These changes will be covered by end-to-end tests and
> > > > migrated
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> Ignite
> > > > > > > > >>>>> 3.0, so I see no issues here.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Finally, Anton & Nikolay
> > > > > > > > >>>>> I do not have an estimate for this simply because the
> > > > activity
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >>>>> community-driven and it depends on the number of people
> > > > willing
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>>> contribute. With the current pace, I would hope to have
> > an
> > > RC
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >>>> 3.0
> > > > > > > > >>>>> to be ready by the end of 2021. My gut feeling is that
> by
> > > > > moving
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >>>>> incremental changes, we will not be able to implement
> > even
> > > > half
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>> wishlist by that time.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> I doubt that releasing several major releases with
> > breaking
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > >>>>> make Ignite users happy either because each upgrade
> will
> > > cost
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >>>> users
> > > > > > > > >>>>> money, so the fewer major versions we release, the
> > better.
> > > > Thus
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > wish
> > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>> include all breaking changes in one release.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> I'll be now quiet for a while, let's see what other
> > > community
> > > > > > > members
> > > > > > > > >>>>> think.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1. Rewriting from scratch is never a good idea.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> We don't want to follow the path of Netscape and lose
> > all
> > > > our
> > > > > > > users
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> by the time we have a working 3.0 [1]
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2. Not sure about new repo - seems like some pain and
> no
> > > > gain,
> > > > > > > > what's
> > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> problem with a branch?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3. We should keep existing integration tests when
> > > possible.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have accumulated a lot of edge case knowledge over
> > the
> > > > > years,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> it is not a good idea to send all of that down the
> > drain.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes, integration tests are slow, but they are the most
> > > > > valuable.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> I think we can move more stuff into nightly runs and
> > have
> > > a
> > > > > fast
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >>>>> modern
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> basic suite.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Alexey, you are much more familiar with the Ignite
> core
> > > > > codebase
> > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > >>>>> most
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> of us,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> can you please explain in more detail which particular
> > > > > feature,
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> your
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> opinion,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> mandates this "start from scratch" approach?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Is it really not possible at all to follow a less
> > radical
> > > > way?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:25 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I think that «rewriting from scratch» approach has a
> > high
> > > > > risk
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>> make
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> features unusable.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> At the time Ignite2 was started no-one wants to do
> bad
> > UX
> > > > or
> > > > > > bad
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> features.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Nevertheless, it happen.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I think we can avoid it with the Ignite3 and
> successors
> > > if
> > > > we
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >>>> move
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> step by step without keeping backward compatibility
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With the step by step approach, we can focus on each
> > > > > component
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> separately.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement for
> > > Ignite
> > > > > 2.x?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> > > support,
> > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
> > without
> > > > > > breaking
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> backward
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> compatibility.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with
> all
> > > it’s
> > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 14:09, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>>> написал(а):
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Do we have any estimates of how fast we'll be able
> to
> > > gain
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> production-ready
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> AI 3.0 in case of a "new repo" choice?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:01 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement for
> > > Ignite
> > > > > > 2.x?
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >>>>> think
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> once
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> we commence working on Ignite 3.0, we should
> > gradually
> > > > > cease
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> activity
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> on Ignite 2.x to mere bugfixes because such
> parallel
> > > > > > > development
> > > > > > > > >>>>> will
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> overwhelming regardless of how we choose to
> proceed.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:38, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >>>>> :
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> To be clear:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest creating a new repository for
> > Ignite
> > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > >>>>> (perhaps, a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> clean branch, but a new repo looks nicer to me)
> and
> > a
> > > > new
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >>>>> 3.0
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TeamCity project.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 for new Team City project.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 for new branch for Ignite3.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -1 for new repo.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:35, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > >>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think it will hurt our project more than help.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Developing new features for 2 separate branches
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> different
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> APIs
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and internal structure is overwhelming
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should relax a bit requirements for
> > Ignite3?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should move step by step and make
> Ignite3
> > > with
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> configuration than Ignite4 with new transactions,
> > etc?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:14, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to pitch a rather radical idea
> regarding
> > > the
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >>>> 3.0
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> development which has occurred to me some time
> > ago.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We already have several IEPs targeted to Ignite
> > 3.0
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > > imply
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> major
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> changes to the codebase (the change in
> replication
> > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> thus
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> transactions, change in binary format, updated
> > > > > > metastorage,
> > > > > > > > >>>> etc).
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> We
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> planned significant changes in public APIs:
> > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > >>>> format
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> change,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> improvements in cache APIs, SQL APIs,
> transaction
> > > mode
> > > > > > > rework.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> The
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wishlist
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of changes for Ignite 3.0 is huge.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I was wondering whether it makes sense to
> try
> > to
> > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>> old
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> codebase, or start with a new baseline and move
> > old
> > > > > pieces
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >>>>> code
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not require significant rework. Personally, I
> > would
> > > go
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> second
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> option for the following reasons:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We have a chance to shift the development
> > paradigm
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>> project
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> introduce the practice of true unit-tests. In
> the
> > > new
> > > > > > > baseline
> > > > > > > > >>>> at
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> beginning there will be no ability to run an
> > > > end-to-end
> > > > > > > > >>>> scenario,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> thus
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> will be forced to write unit-tests. So far, such
> > > > > practice
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > >>>>> hard
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> implement because of tight coupling between
> Ignite
> > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> inability
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to instantiate components without an instance of
> > > > > > > > KernalContext.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> For
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> example, we should be able to thoroughly test
> > > internal
> > > > > > > > >>>>> primitives,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> such as
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol (without actual
> > communication),
> > > > > > > > >>>> distributed
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> metastorage contracts, persistence layer, etc.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will significantly reduce the development
> > cycle
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> beginning
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (right now the RunAll takes two hours of
> > > astronomical
> > > > > time
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> empty
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TC;
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in the new approach developer will be able to
> run
> > > ALL
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > >>>>> locally
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> matter of minutes)
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We can get rid of TC bot and enforce green TC
> by
> > > > > > > integrating
> > > > > > > > >>>> TC
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> build
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> results with GitHub PRs (the same way Travis is
> > > > > currently
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> integrated
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to PR
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> check). We should restrict PR merge without a TC
> > > check
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will still have to re-write all tests, but
> > only
> > > > > once.
> > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > >>>> we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> try
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> modify the old codebase, we would need to modify
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> every
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> major change (public API change, configuration
> > > change)
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will have fewer conflicts when working
> > > together.
> > > > > For
> > > > > > > > >>>>> example,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot imagine how one would merge two changes
> of
> > > > > getting
> > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteFuture and changes in replication
> protocol,
> > > for
> > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Technically, I would suggest creating a new
> > > repository
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3.0
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a new clean branch, but a new repo
> looks
> > > > nicer
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > me)
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> and a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3.0 TeamCity project.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> While it may seem quite radical, I do believe
> that
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > >>>> approach
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> give
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> us more benefits than trying to make such major
> > > > changes
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> existing
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. If needed, let's schedule a discord
> chat
> > > > like
> > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> discuss
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> this.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > > > > >>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > >>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--

Best regards,
Alexei Scherbakov

[Maxim Muzafarov]

 Sergey,


Your summary makes sense to me.

However, how we come up from *Development transparency* to *create a
separate public repository dedicated for 3.0*? For me *development
transparency* is about making changes in the master branch. These
changes will definitely be seen by all the Ignite developers.

A dedicated public repository is technically public and visible for
everyone, but it allows development without IEPs, without public
discussion (since all the code changes are not related to the master
branch) it also allows a large number of assumptions and deviations
(like code-style violations). It also not about *development
transparency* since developers which are working on 3.0 is only a
subset of all Ignite developers which may continue working on 2.x. For
me, this would be a huge step backwards.

Ignite veterans should remember how long the branch stabilization took
for the 2.x version with the PDS.


I think each breaking change should be passed through the master branch.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 22:18, Alexei Scherbakov
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Makes sense to me.
>
> вт, 10 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:47, Sergey Chugunov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> > I thought over Friday meeting ideas and concerns and summarized them in
> > these three points:
> >
> >
> >    1. *Components design unification approach.* New proposed components
> >    will be developed by different contributors, but they need to be unified
> >    and should integrate with each other easily. To ensure that I suggest
> >    calling an architecture group that will create design guidelines for all
> >    components and high-level overview of overall architecture. How code is
> >    split into components, what are component boundaries, how component
> >    lifecycle works and what are its interfaces - all these and other
> > questions
> >    should be covered.
> >
> >    2. *Scope management.* Apache 3.0 should be implemented within a
> >    reasonable time, so we need some procedure to decide whether a
> > particular
> >    feature should be dropped from the scope of 3.0 and postponed to 3.1
> >    release. To do so I suggest to range all features by two parameters:
> >    criticality for 3.0 and amount of breaking changes. 3.0 scope should
> >    include features of high criticality AND features with a big amount of
> >    breaking changes. All other features can be made optional.
> >
> >    3. *Development transparency.* Development of all components should be
> >    made as transparent for everyone as possible. Any contributor should be
> >    able to look over any component at any stage of development. To achieve
> >    this I suggest to create a separate public repository dedicated for 3.0
> >    development. It will make the code available for everyone but when
> >    development of 3.0 is done we won't loose any stars of our current
> >    repository as we merge dev repo into main one and drop dev.
> >
> > Do these ideas make sense to you? Are there any concerns not covered by
> > these suggestions?
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:36 PM Kseniya Romanova <[hidden email]
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Here are the slides from Alexey Goncharuk. Let's think this over and
> > > continue on Monday:
> > >
> > >
> > https://go.gridgain.com/rs/491-TWR-806/images/Ignite_3_Plans_and_development_process.pdf
> > >
> > > чт, 5 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:13, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > Should we perform cleanup work before (r)evolutional changes?
> > > > My huge proposal is to get rid of things which we don't need anyway
> > > > - local caches,
> > > > - strange tx modes,
> > > > - code overcomplexity because of RollingUpgrade feature never attended
> > at
> > > > AI,
> > > > - etc,
> > > > before choosing the way.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:31 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ksenia, thanks for scheduling this on such short notice!
> > > > >
> > > > > As for the original topic, I do support Alexey's idea. We're not
> > going
> > > to
> > > > > rewrite anything from scratch, as most of the components are going to
> > > be
> > > > > moved as-is or with minimal modifications. However, the changes that
> > > are
> > > > > proposed imply serious rework of the core parts of the code, which
> > are
> > > > not
> > > > > properly decoupled from each other and from other parts. This makes
> > the
> > > > > incremental approach borderline impossible. Developing in a new repo,
> > > > > however, addresses this concern. As a bonus, we can also refactor the
> > > > code,
> > > > > introduce better decoupling, get rid of kernel context, and develop
> > > unit
> > > > > tests (finally!).
> > > > >
> > > > > Basically, this proposal only affects the *process*, not the set of
> > > > changes
> > > > > we had discussed before. Ignite 3.0 is our unique chance to make
> > things
> > > > > right.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Val
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:06 AM Kseniya Romanova <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Pavel, all the interesting points will be anyway published here in
> > > > > English
> > > > > > (as the principal "if it's not on devlist it doesn't happened" is
> > > still
> > > > > > relevant). This is just a quick call for a group of developers.
> > Later
> > > > we
> > > > > > can do a separate presentation of idea and discussion in English as
> > > we
> > > > > did
> > > > > > for the Ignite 3.0 draft of changes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kseniya,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for scheduling this call.
> > > > > > > Do you think we can switch to English if non-Russian speaking
> > > > community
> > > > > > > members decide to join?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:32 PM Kseniya Romanova <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let's do this community discussion open. Here's the link on
> > zoom
> > > > call
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > Russian for Friday 6 PM:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/events/274360378/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 12:49, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Time works for me.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 3 нояб. 2020 г., в 12:40, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > написал(а):
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am up for the call. I will try to explain my reasoning in
> > > > > greater
> > > > > > > > > detail
> > > > > > > > > > and will be glad to hear the concerns. Will this Friday,
> > Nov
> > > > 6th,
> > > > > > > work?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 10:09, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Igniters, should we have a call for this topic?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 18:53, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> написал(а):
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> not intend to rewrite everything from scratch
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be moved to
> > > Ignite
> > > > 3
> > > > > > > > > >>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Alexey, thank you for the explanation, this addresses all
> > > of
> > > > my
> > > > > > > > > concerns.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:43 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Hi, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> * AFAIU, we need a new repo if we want to apply
> > different
> > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>> pull requests,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> otherwise I see no difference for myself.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> E.g. make static analysis (do we have?), compile,
> > styles,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > javadoc
> > > > > > > > > >>>> checks mandatory.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> I think that relaxed requirements here will lead to bad
> > > > > product
> > > > > > > > > quality.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> * Agree with Pavel, we should 'keep' integrations tests
> > > > > somehow.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> During active development tests will be broken most of
> > > time,
> > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> I'd port them e.g. suite-by-suite once we will have a
> > > stable
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> featured
> > > > > > > > > >>>> environment to run them and of course make test's code
> > > clear
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > > >>>> bad/non-relevant ones.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> * I like bottom-up approach.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> With it we could make a better framework. I mean clear
> > > > > component
> > > > > > > > > >> lifecycle,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> component wiring mechanics, general methods to approach
> > > core
> > > > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > > > >>>> such as exchange/communication
> > > > > > > > > >>>> to avoid code mess like we have in ExchangeFuture with
> > all
> > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > custom
> > > > > > > > > >>>> callbacks for each component, interfaces like
> > > > > > > > > >>>> PartitionsExchangeAware, IgniteChangeGlobalStateSupport
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > >>>> a pack of
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > start/stop/onKernalStart/onPluginStart/onActivate/onDisconnected
> > > > > > > > > >>>> and so on in various unexpected places.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Hope, we will be able to port most of the good code to
> > the
> > > > new
> > > > > > > > > framework
> > > > > > > > > >>>> version.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > >>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Nikolay, Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback! First of all, I wanted to
> > stress
> > > > > that
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> intend to rewrite everything from scratch (I never used
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > phrase).
> > > > > > > > > >>>> There
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> are significant parts of code that would be moved with
> > > > > minimal
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> modifications. Second, I never said that we will get
> > rid
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> codebase. Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be
> > > moved
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > Ignite 3
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> My point is that for some parts of the code a clean
> > > > bottom-up
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> implementation will be cheaper in many ways. Let me
> > give
> > > > you
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > >>>> concrete
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> examples:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>  - I think no one can object that we need a cleanly
> > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > >>>> persistence
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>  layer for Ignite. There is a very raw draft IEP for
> > this
> > > > > > > already.
> > > > > > > > On
> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>  other hand, I think we also can agree that we need a
> > > > > > split-brain
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> resistant
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>  replication protocol for caches. There is also an IEP
> > > for
> > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Neither
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>  the changes is a good fit for 2.x because they are
> > > likely
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> introduce
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>  breaking changes in the persistence layer,
> > configuration
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> behavior.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>  Additionally, these components are now tightly
> > coupled,
> > > so
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> no
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> way
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>  these two changes can be implemented in parallel and
> > > then
> > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> together
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>  easily. So what we will end up with is having to
> > > implement
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > >>>> changes
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>  sequentially, fixing all existing tests twice, and
> > > > > essentially
> > > > > > > > > >>>> throwing
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>  away half of the work done because the other part of
> > the
> > > > > > change
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>  re-implemented
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>  - Similar example goes with getting rid of
> > > > > > IgniteInternalFuture
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>  replacing it with CompletableFuture, and any other
> > > change
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >> touches
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>  asynchronous part of the code.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Third, I do not see how this choice affects the UX of
> > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > end
> > > > > > > > > >>>> user
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> experience must be fixed in the IEP regardless of the
> > > > > > development
> > > > > > > > > >> process
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> and the fact that we have gaps in this area in Ignite
> > 2.x
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > confirms
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> that.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Pavel, agree that a repo/branch is a technicality, I
> > > guess
> > > > if
> > > > > > > > > >>>> reformulate,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> my point is that we might agree to have a single
> > > > development
> > > > > > > master
> > > > > > > > > >>>> branch
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> with 'disassembled' end-to-end functionality for some
> > > > period
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> speed up development, and re-assemble the core features
> > > > after
> > > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> submodules tested independently.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> > > support,
> > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> This is not very specific. In the end, resources are
> > > > limited
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> not be able to drive both tracks simultaneously,
> > > especially
> > > > > > > after a
> > > > > > > > > >>>> couple
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> of features having been implemented for Ignite 3.0. If
> > > > there
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > indeed
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> some major changes that we want to do in Ignite 2.x
> > > instead
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > putting
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> effort into 3.0 - let's discuss them. I am just not
> > aware
> > > > of
> > > > > > any,
> > > > > > > > > >> that's
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> why I am eager to move forward with Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
> > without
> > > > > > > breaking
> > > > > > > > > >>>> backward
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> compatibility.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with all
> > > > it’s
> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> These changes will be covered by end-to-end tests and
> > > > > migrated
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 3.0, so I see no issues here.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Finally, Anton & Nikolay
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> I do not have an estimate for this simply because the
> > > > > activity
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> community-driven and it depends on the number of people
> > > > > willing
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> contribute. With the current pace, I would hope to have
> > > an
> > > > RC
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >>>> 3.0
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> to be ready by the end of 2021. My gut feeling is that
> > by
> > > > > > moving
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> incremental changes, we will not be able to implement
> > > even
> > > > > half
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> wishlist by that time.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> I doubt that releasing several major releases with
> > > breaking
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> make Ignite users happy either because each upgrade
> > will
> > > > cost
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >>>> users
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> money, so the fewer major versions we release, the
> > > better.
> > > > > Thus
> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > wish
> > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> include all breaking changes in one release.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> I'll be now quiet for a while, let's see what other
> > > > community
> > > > > > > > members
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> think.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1. Rewriting from scratch is never a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We don't want to follow the path of Netscape and lose
> > > all
> > > > > our
> > > > > > > > users
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> by the time we have a working 3.0 [1]
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2. Not sure about new repo - seems like some pain and
> > no
> > > > > gain,
> > > > > > > > > what's
> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> problem with a branch?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3. We should keep existing integration tests when
> > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have accumulated a lot of edge case knowledge over
> > > the
> > > > > > years,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it is not a good idea to send all of that down the
> > > drain.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes, integration tests are slow, but they are the most
> > > > > > valuable.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I think we can move more stuff into nightly runs and
> > > have
> > > > a
> > > > > > fast
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> modern
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> basic suite.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Alexey, you are much more familiar with the Ignite
> > core
> > > > > > codebase
> > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> most
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> of us,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can you please explain in more detail which particular
> > > > > > feature,
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> your
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> opinion,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> mandates this "start from scratch" approach?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Is it really not possible at all to follow a less
> > > radical
> > > > > way?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:25 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I think that «rewriting from scratch» approach has a
> > > high
> > > > > > risk
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>> make
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> features unusable.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> At the time Ignite2 was started no-one wants to do
> > bad
> > > UX
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > bad
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> features.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Nevertheless, it happen.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I think we can avoid it with the Ignite3 and
> > successors
> > > > if
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > >>>> move
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> step by step without keeping backward compatibility
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With the step by step approach, we can focus on each
> > > > > > component
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> separately.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement for
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > 2.x?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> > > > support,
> > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
> > > without
> > > > > > > breaking
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> backward
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> compatibility.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with
> > all
> > > > it’s
> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 14:09, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> написал(а):
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Do we have any estimates of how fast we'll be able
> > to
> > > > gain
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> production-ready
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> AI 3.0 in case of a "new repo" choice?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:01 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement for
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > 2.x?
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> think
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> once
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> we commence working on Ignite 3.0, we should
> > > gradually
> > > > > > cease
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> activity
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> on Ignite 2.x to mere bugfixes because such
> > parallel
> > > > > > > > development
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> overwhelming regardless of how we choose to
> > proceed.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:38, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> :
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> To be clear:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest creating a new repository for
> > > Ignite
> > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> (perhaps, a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> clean branch, but a new repo looks nicer to me)
> > and
> > > a
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 3.0
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TeamCity project.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 for new Team City project.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 for new branch for Ignite3.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -1 for new repo.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:35, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > > >>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think it will hurt our project more than help.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Developing new features for 2 separate branches
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> different
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and internal structure is overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should relax a bit requirements for
> > > Ignite3?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should move step by step and make
> > Ignite3
> > > > with
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> configuration than Ignite4 with new transactions,
> > > etc?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:14, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to pitch a rather radical idea
> > regarding
> > > > the
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >>>> 3.0
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> development which has occurred to me some time
> > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We already have several IEPs targeted to Ignite
> > > 3.0
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > imply
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> major
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> changes to the codebase (the change in
> > replication
> > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> thus
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> transactions, change in binary format, updated
> > > > > > > metastorage,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> etc).
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> planned significant changes in public APIs:
> > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > > >>>> format
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> change,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> improvements in cache APIs, SQL APIs,
> > transaction
> > > > mode
> > > > > > > > rework.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> The
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wishlist
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of changes for Ignite 3.0 is huge.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I was wondering whether it makes sense to
> > try
> > > to
> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> old
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> codebase, or start with a new baseline and move
> > > old
> > > > > > pieces
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> code
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not require significant rework. Personally, I
> > > would
> > > > go
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> second
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> option for the following reasons:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We have a chance to shift the development
> > > paradigm
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> project
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> introduce the practice of true unit-tests. In
> > the
> > > > new
> > > > > > > > baseline
> > > > > > > > > >>>> at
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> beginning there will be no ability to run an
> > > > > end-to-end
> > > > > > > > > >>>> scenario,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> thus
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> will be forced to write unit-tests. So far, such
> > > > > > practice
> > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> hard
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> implement because of tight coupling between
> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> inability
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to instantiate components without an instance of
> > > > > > > > > KernalContext.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> For
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> example, we should be able to thoroughly test
> > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> primitives,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> such as
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol (without actual
> > > communication),
> > > > > > > > > >>>> distributed
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> metastorage contracts, persistence layer, etc.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will significantly reduce the development
> > > cycle
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> beginning
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (right now the RunAll takes two hours of
> > > > astronomical
> > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> empty
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TC;
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in the new approach developer will be able to
> > run
> > > > ALL
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> locally
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> matter of minutes)
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We can get rid of TC bot and enforce green TC
> > by
> > > > > > > > integrating
> > > > > > > > > >>>> TC
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> build
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> results with GitHub PRs (the same way Travis is
> > > > > > currently
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> integrated
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to PR
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> check). We should restrict PR merge without a TC
> > > > check
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will still have to re-write all tests, but
> > > only
> > > > > > once.
> > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > >>>> we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> try
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> modify the old codebase, we would need to modify
> > > all
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> every
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> major change (public API change, configuration
> > > > change)
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will have fewer conflicts when working
> > > > together.
> > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> example,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot imagine how one would merge two changes
> > of
> > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteFuture and changes in replication
> > protocol,
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Technically, I would suggest creating a new
> > > > repository
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3.0
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a new clean branch, but a new repo
> > looks
> > > > > nicer
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > me)
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3.0 TeamCity project.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> While it may seem quite radical, I do believe
> > that
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > >>>> approach
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> give
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> us more benefits than trying to make such major
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> existing
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. If needed, let's schedule a discord
> > chat
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> discuss
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> this.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Alexei Scherbakov

[Valentin Kulichenko]

Maxim,

2.x and 3.x will have to coexist for some time - I don't see how we can
avoid this considering the set of proposed changes. That said, we
effectively will need to have two "masters" - one for each major version.
Master for 3.x can technically be a branch in the existing repo, but having
a separate repo seems cleaner, simply because it will not be a "branch" in
the traditional sense.

Note that the new repo will still be under the Apache org, with the same
set of committers, managed by the community, etc. All the development
happening for 3.0 must follow the rules that we currently have (if
anything, it's an opportunity to improve those rules).

As I said during the call on Friday, I strongly believe that if there is a
transparency issue, it will exist regardless of the approach we choose for
3.0. If community members develop without IEPs or public discussions, this
will happen for both 2.x and 3.x unless we address this separately. I don't
see how this is related to Alexey's suggestion, which targets *technical*
issues with the product more than anything else. This a way to achieve
better modularity, introduce better coverage with unit tests, reduce
conflicts during development, etc.

Coming back to transparency, let's identify the issues and fix them. It
probably makes sense to have a separate discussion on this topic.

-Val

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:05 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote:

>  Sergey,
>
>
> Your summary makes sense to me.
>
> However, how we come up from *Development transparency* to *create a
> separate public repository dedicated for 3.0*? For me *development
> transparency* is about making changes in the master branch. These
> changes will definitely be seen by all the Ignite developers.
>
> A dedicated public repository is technically public and visible for
> everyone, but it allows development without IEPs, without public
> discussion (since all the code changes are not related to the master
> branch) it also allows a large number of assumptions and deviations
> (like code-style violations). It also not about *development
> transparency* since developers which are working on 3.0 is only a
> subset of all Ignite developers which may continue working on 2.x. For
> me, this would be a huge step backwards.
>
> Ignite veterans should remember how long the branch stabilization took
> for the 2.x version with the PDS.
>
>
> I think each breaking change should be passed through the master branch.
>
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 22:18, Alexei Scherbakov
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Makes sense to me.
> >
> > вт, 10 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:47, Sergey Chugunov <[hidden email]
> >:
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > I thought over Friday meeting ideas and concerns and summarized them in
> > > these three points:
> > >
> > >
> > >    1. *Components design unification approach.* New proposed components
> > >    will be developed by different contributors, but they need to be
> unified
> > >    and should integrate with each other easily. To ensure that I
> suggest
> > >    calling an architecture group that will create design guidelines
> for all
> > >    components and high-level overview of overall architecture. How
> code is
> > >    split into components, what are component boundaries, how component
> > >    lifecycle works and what are its interfaces - all these and other
> > > questions
> > >    should be covered.
> > >
> > >    2. *Scope management.* Apache 3.0 should be implemented within a
> > >    reasonable time, so we need some procedure to decide whether a
> > > particular
> > >    feature should be dropped from the scope of 3.0 and postponed to 3.1
> > >    release. To do so I suggest to range all features by two parameters:
> > >    criticality for 3.0 and amount of breaking changes. 3.0 scope should
> > >    include features of high criticality AND features with a big amount
> of
> > >    breaking changes. All other features can be made optional.
> > >
> > >    3. *Development transparency.* Development of all components should
> be
> > >    made as transparent for everyone as possible. Any contributor
> should be
> > >    able to look over any component at any stage of development. To
> achieve
> > >    this I suggest to create a separate public repository dedicated for
> 3.0
> > >    development. It will make the code available for everyone but when
> > >    development of 3.0 is done we won't loose any stars of our current
> > >    repository as we merge dev repo into main one and drop dev.
> > >
> > > Do these ideas make sense to you? Are there any concerns not covered by
> > > these suggestions?
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:36 PM Kseniya Romanova <
> [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here are the slides from Alexey Goncharuk. Let's think this over and
> > > > continue on Monday:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://go.gridgain.com/rs/491-TWR-806/images/Ignite_3_Plans_and_development_process.pdf
> > > >
> > > > чт, 5 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:13, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > Folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Should we perform cleanup work before (r)evolutional changes?
> > > > > My huge proposal is to get rid of things which we don't need anyway
> > > > > - local caches,
> > > > > - strange tx modes,
> > > > > - code overcomplexity because of RollingUpgrade feature never
> attended
> > > at
> > > > > AI,
> > > > > - etc,
> > > > > before choosing the way.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:31 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ksenia, thanks for scheduling this on such short notice!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As for the original topic, I do support Alexey's idea. We're not
> > > going
> > > > to
> > > > > > rewrite anything from scratch, as most of the components are
> going to
> > > > be
> > > > > > moved as-is or with minimal modifications. However, the changes
> that
> > > > are
> > > > > > proposed imply serious rework of the core parts of the code,
> which
> > > are
> > > > > not
> > > > > > properly decoupled from each other and from other parts. This
> makes
> > > the
> > > > > > incremental approach borderline impossible. Developing in a new
> repo,
> > > > > > however, addresses this concern. As a bonus, we can also
> refactor the
> > > > > code,
> > > > > > introduce better decoupling, get rid of kernel context, and
> develop
> > > > unit
> > > > > > tests (finally!).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Basically, this proposal only affects the *process*, not the set
> of
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > we had discussed before. Ignite 3.0 is our unique chance to make
> > > things
> > > > > > right.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Val
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:06 AM Kseniya Romanova <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pavel, all the interesting points will be anyway published
> here in
> > > > > > English
> > > > > > > (as the principal "if it's not on devlist it doesn't happened"
> is
> > > > still
> > > > > > > relevant). This is just a quick call for a group of developers.
> > > Later
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > can do a separate presentation of idea and discussion in
> English as
> > > > we
> > > > > > did
> > > > > > > for the Ignite 3.0 draft of changes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kseniya,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for scheduling this call.
> > > > > > > > Do you think we can switch to English if non-Russian speaking
> > > > > community
> > > > > > > > members decide to join?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:32 PM Kseniya Romanova <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Let's do this community discussion open. Here's the link on
> > > zoom
> > > > > call
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > Russian for Friday 6 PM:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/events/274360378/
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 12:49, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Time works for me.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 3 нояб. 2020 г., в 12:40, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > написал(а):
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I am up for the call. I will try to explain my
> reasoning in
> > > > > > greater
> > > > > > > > > > detail
> > > > > > > > > > > and will be glad to hear the concerns. Will this
> Friday,
> > > Nov
> > > > > 6th,
> > > > > > > > work?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 10:09, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Igniters, should we have a call for this topic?
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 18:53, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> написал(а):
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> not intend to rewrite everything from scratch
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be moved to
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > 3
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Alexey, thank you for the explanation, this
> addresses all
> > > > of
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > concerns.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:43 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Hi, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> * AFAIU, we need a new repo if we want to apply
> > > different
> > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> pull requests,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> otherwise I see no difference for myself.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> E.g. make static analysis (do we have?), compile,
> > > styles,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > javadoc
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> checks mandatory.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> I think that relaxed requirements here will lead to
> bad
> > > > > > product
> > > > > > > > > > quality.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> * Agree with Pavel, we should 'keep' integrations
> tests
> > > > > > somehow.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> During active development tests will be broken most
> of
> > > > time,
> > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> I'd port them e.g. suite-by-suite once we will have
> a
> > > > stable
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> featured
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> environment to run them and of course make test's
> code
> > > > clear
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> bad/non-relevant ones.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> * I like bottom-up approach.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> With it we could make a better framework. I mean
> clear
> > > > > > component
> > > > > > > > > > >> lifecycle,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> component wiring mechanics, general methods to
> approach
> > > > core
> > > > > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> such as exchange/communication
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> to avoid code mess like we have in ExchangeFuture
> with
> > > all
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > custom
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> callbacks for each component, interfaces like
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> PartitionsExchangeAware,
> IgniteChangeGlobalStateSupport
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> a pack of
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > start/stop/onKernalStart/onPluginStart/onActivate/onDisconnected
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> and so on in various unexpected places.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Hope, we will be able to port most of the good code
> to
> > > the
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > framework
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> version.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Nikolay, Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback! First of all, I wanted to
> > > stress
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> intend to rewrite everything from scratch (I never
> used
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > phrase).
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> There
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> are significant parts of code that would be moved
> with
> > > > > > minimal
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> modifications. Second, I never said that we will
> get
> > > rid
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> codebase. Every single test from Ignite 2.x should
> be
> > > > moved
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > Ignite 3
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> My point is that for some parts of the code a clean
> > > > > bottom-up
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> implementation will be cheaper in many ways. Let me
> > > give
> > > > > you
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> concrete
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> examples:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  - I think no one can object that we need a cleanly
> > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> persistence
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  layer for Ignite. There is a very raw draft IEP
> for
> > > this
> > > > > > > > already.
> > > > > > > > > On
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  other hand, I think we also can agree that we
> need a
> > > > > > > split-brain
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> resistant
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  replication protocol for caches. There is also an
> IEP
> > > > for
> > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Neither
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  the changes is a good fit for 2.x because they are
> > > > likely
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> introduce
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  breaking changes in the persistence layer,
> > > configuration
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> behavior.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  Additionally, these components are now tightly
> > > coupled,
> > > > so
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >> no
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> way
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  these two changes can be implemented in parallel
> and
> > > > then
> > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> together
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  easily. So what we will end up with is having to
> > > > implement
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> changes
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  sequentially, fixing all existing tests twice, and
> > > > > > essentially
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> throwing
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  away half of the work done because the other part
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  re-implemented
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  - Similar example goes with getting rid of
> > > > > > > IgniteInternalFuture
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  replacing it with CompletableFuture, and any other
> > > > change
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> touches
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  asynchronous part of the code.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Third, I do not see how this choice affects the UX
> of
> > > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > end
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> user
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> experience must be fixed in the IEP regardless of
> the
> > > > > > > development
> > > > > > > > > > >> process
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and the fact that we have gaps in this area in
> Ignite
> > > 2.x
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > confirms
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> that.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Pavel, agree that a repo/branch is a technicality,
> I
> > > > guess
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> reformulate,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> my point is that we might agree to have a single
> > > > > development
> > > > > > > > master
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> branch
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> with 'disassembled' end-to-end functionality for
> some
> > > > > period
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> speed up development, and re-assemble the core
> features
> > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> submodules tested independently.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> > > > support,
> > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> This is not very specific. In the end, resources
> are
> > > > > limited
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> not be able to drive both tracks simultaneously,
> > > > especially
> > > > > > > > after a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> couple
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of features having been implemented for Ignite
> 3.0. If
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > indeed
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> some major changes that we want to do in Ignite 2.x
> > > > instead
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > putting
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> effort into 3.0 - let's discuss them. I am just not
> > > aware
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > any,
> > > > > > > > > > >> that's
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> why I am eager to move forward with Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
> > > without
> > > > > > > > breaking
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> backward
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> compatibility.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x
> with all
> > > > > it’s
> > > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> These changes will be covered by end-to-end tests
> and
> > > > > > migrated
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 3.0, so I see no issues here.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Finally, Anton & Nikolay
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I do not have an estimate for this simply because
> the
> > > > > > activity
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> community-driven and it depends on the number of
> people
> > > > > > willing
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> contribute. With the current pace, I would hope to
> have
> > > > an
> > > > > RC
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to be ready by the end of 2021. My gut feeling is
> that
> > > by
> > > > > > > moving
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> incremental changes, we will not be able to
> implement
> > > > even
> > > > > > half
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wishlist by that time.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I doubt that releasing several major releases with
> > > > breaking
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> make Ignite users happy either because each upgrade
> > > will
> > > > > cost
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> users
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> money, so the fewer major versions we release, the
> > > > better.
> > > > > > Thus
> > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > wish
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> include all breaking changes in one release.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I'll be now quiet for a while, let's see what other
> > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > members
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> think.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1. Rewriting from scratch is never a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We don't want to follow the path of Netscape and
> lose
> > > > all
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > users
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> by the time we have a working 3.0 [1]
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2. Not sure about new repo - seems like some pain
> and
> > > no
> > > > > > gain,
> > > > > > > > > > what's
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> problem with a branch?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3. We should keep existing integration tests when
> > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have accumulated a lot of edge case knowledge
> over
> > > > the
> > > > > > > years,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it is not a good idea to send all of that down the
> > > > drain.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes, integration tests are slow, but they are the
> most
> > > > > > > valuable.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I think we can move more stuff into nightly runs
> and
> > > > have
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > fast
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> modern
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> basic suite.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Alexey, you are much more familiar with the Ignite
> > > core
> > > > > > > codebase
> > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> most
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> of us,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can you please explain in more detail which
> particular
> > > > > > > feature,
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >> your
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> opinion,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> mandates this "start from scratch" approach?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Is it really not possible at all to follow a less
> > > > radical
> > > > > > way?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:25 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I think that «rewriting from scratch» approach
> has a
> > > > high
> > > > > > > risk
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> make
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> features unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> At the time Ignite2 was started no-one wants to
> do
> > > bad
> > > > UX
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > bad
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> features.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Nevertheless, it happen.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I think we can avoid it with the Ignite3 and
> > > successors
> > > > > if
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> move
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> step by step without keeping backward
> compatibility
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With the step by step approach, we can focus on
> each
> > > > > > > component
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> separately.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement
> for
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > 2.x?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> > > > > support,
> > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
> > > > without
> > > > > > > > breaking
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> backward
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> compatibility.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x
> with
> > > all
> > > > > it’s
> > > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 14:09, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> написал(а):
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Do we have any estimates of how fast we'll be
> able
> > > to
> > > > > gain
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> production-ready
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> AI 3.0 in case of a "new repo" choice?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:01 PM Alexey Goncharuk
> <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement
> for
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > 2.x?
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> think
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> once
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> we commence working on Ignite 3.0, we should
> > > > gradually
> > > > > > > cease
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> activity
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> on Ignite 2.x to mere bugfixes because such
> > > parallel
> > > > > > > > > development
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> overwhelming regardless of how we choose to
> > > proceed.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:38, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> :
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> To be clear:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest creating a new repository for
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> (perhaps, a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> clean branch, but a new repo looks nicer to
> me)
> > > and
> > > > a
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TeamCity project.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 for new Team City project.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 for new branch for Ignite3.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -1 for new repo.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:35, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think it will hurt our project more than
> help.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Developing new features for 2 separate
> branches
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> different
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and internal structure is overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should relax a bit requirements for
> > > > Ignite3?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should move step by step and make
> > > Ignite3
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> configuration than Ignite4 with new
> transactions,
> > > > etc?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:14, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to pitch a rather radical idea
> > > regarding
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> development which has occurred to me some
> time
> > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We already have several IEPs targeted to
> Ignite
> > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > imply
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> major
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> changes to the codebase (the change in
> > > replication
> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> thus
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> transactions, change in binary format,
> updated
> > > > > > > > metastorage,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> etc).
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> planned significant changes in public APIs:
> > > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> format
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> change,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> improvements in cache APIs, SQL APIs,
> > > transaction
> > > > > mode
> > > > > > > > > rework.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> The
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wishlist
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of changes for Ignite 3.0 is huge.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I was wondering whether it makes sense
> to
> > > try
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> old
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> codebase, or start with a new baseline and
> move
> > > > old
> > > > > > > pieces
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> code
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not require significant rework. Personally,
> I
> > > > would
> > > > > go
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> second
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> option for the following reasons:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We have a chance to shift the development
> > > > paradigm
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> introduce the practice of true unit-tests.
> In
> > > the
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > baseline
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> at
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> beginning there will be no ability to run an
> > > > > > end-to-end
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> scenario,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> thus
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> will be forced to write unit-tests. So far,
> such
> > > > > > > practice
> > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> hard
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> implement because of tight coupling between
> > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> inability
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to instantiate components without an
> instance of
> > > > > > > > > > KernalContext.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> For
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> example, we should be able to thoroughly
> test
> > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> primitives,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> such as
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol (without actual
> > > > communication),
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> distributed
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> metastorage contracts, persistence layer,
> etc.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will significantly reduce the
> development
> > > > cycle
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> beginning
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (right now the RunAll takes two hours of
> > > > > astronomical
> > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> empty
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TC;
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in the new approach developer will be able
> to
> > > run
> > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> locally
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> matter of minutes)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We can get rid of TC bot and enforce
> green TC
> > > by
> > > > > > > > > integrating
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> TC
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> build
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> results with GitHub PRs (the same way
> Travis is
> > > > > > > currently
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> integrated
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to PR
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> check). We should restrict PR merge without
> a TC
> > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will still have to re-write all tests,
> but
> > > > only
> > > > > > > once.
> > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> try
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> modify the old codebase, we would need to
> modify
> > > > all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> every
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> major change (public API change,
> configuration
> > > > > change)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will have fewer conflicts when working
> > > > > together.
> > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> example,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot imagine how one would merge two
> changes
> > > of
> > > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteFuture and changes in replication
> > > protocol,
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Technically, I would suggest creating a new
> > > > > repository
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a new clean branch, but a new repo
> > > looks
> > > > > > nicer
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > me)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3.0 TeamCity project.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> While it may seem quite radical, I do
> believe
> > > that
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> approach
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> give
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> us more benefits than trying to make such
> major
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> existing
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. If needed, let's schedule a
> discord
> > > chat
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> discuss
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> this.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Alexei Scherbakov
>

[Valentin Kulichenko]

Folks,

We already have multiple IEPs for Ignite 3.0, and as far as I know, there
are contributors that would like to work on them (or probably already
started). That said, we should make a decision as soon as possible.

At this point, it doesn't seem that there are any strong objections to the
technical side of things. So I would suggest the following:

1. Proceed with Alexey's approach to the development process, as it seems
to be the best (in my opinion - the only) way to address all the technical
concerns and issues expressed in the thread. We'll start by creating a new
repo and a new TC project.
2. Start a separate discussion around transparency. If there are any
changes we need to make to our contributor guidelines, I am happy to talk
them through, but I don't think it's reasonable to delay feature
development because of this. In the short term, I will make sure that
everything that happens within the new repo is as open to the community
as possible.

Nikolay, Maxim, are you OK with this route?

-Val

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 4:55 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Maxim,
>
> 2.x and 3.x will have to coexist for some time - I don't see how we can
> avoid this considering the set of proposed changes. That said, we
> effectively will need to have two "masters" - one for each major version.
> Master for 3.x can technically be a branch in the existing repo, but having
> a separate repo seems cleaner, simply because it will not be a "branch" in
> the traditional sense.
>
> Note that the new repo will still be under the Apache org, with the same
> set of committers, managed by the community, etc. All the development
> happening for 3.0 must follow the rules that we currently have (if
> anything, it's an opportunity to improve those rules).
>
> As I said during the call on Friday, I strongly believe that if there is a
> transparency issue, it will exist regardless of the approach we choose for
> 3.0. If community members develop without IEPs or public discussions, this
> will happen for both 2.x and 3.x unless we address this separately. I don't
> see how this is related to Alexey's suggestion, which targets *technical*
> issues with the product more than anything else. This a way to achieve
> better modularity, introduce better coverage with unit tests, reduce
> conflicts during development, etc.
>
> Coming back to transparency, let's identify the issues and fix them. It
> probably makes sense to have a separate discussion on this topic.
>
> -Val
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:05 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>  Sergey,
>>
>>
>> Your summary makes sense to me.
>>
>> However, how we come up from *Development transparency* to *create a
>> separate public repository dedicated for 3.0*? For me *development
>> transparency* is about making changes in the master branch. These
>> changes will definitely be seen by all the Ignite developers.
>>
>> A dedicated public repository is technically public and visible for
>> everyone, but it allows development without IEPs, without public
>> discussion (since all the code changes are not related to the master
>> branch) it also allows a large number of assumptions and deviations
>> (like code-style violations). It also not about *development
>> transparency* since developers which are working on 3.0 is only a
>> subset of all Ignite developers which may continue working on 2.x. For
>> me, this would be a huge step backwards.
>>
>> Ignite veterans should remember how long the branch stabilization took
>> for the 2.x version with the PDS.
>>
>>
>> I think each breaking change should be passed through the master branch.
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 22:18, Alexei Scherbakov
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Makes sense to me.
>> >
>> > вт, 10 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:47, Sergey Chugunov <
>> [hidden email]>:
>> >
>> > > Igniters,
>> > >
>> > > I thought over Friday meeting ideas and concerns and summarized them
>> in
>> > > these three points:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >    1. *Components design unification approach.* New proposed
>> components
>> > >    will be developed by different contributors, but they need to be
>> unified
>> > >    and should integrate with each other easily. To ensure that I
>> suggest
>> > >    calling an architecture group that will create design guidelines
>> for all
>> > >    components and high-level overview of overall architecture. How
>> code is
>> > >    split into components, what are component boundaries, how component
>> > >    lifecycle works and what are its interfaces - all these and other
>> > > questions
>> > >    should be covered.
>> > >
>> > >    2. *Scope management.* Apache 3.0 should be implemented within a
>> > >    reasonable time, so we need some procedure to decide whether a
>> > > particular
>> > >    feature should be dropped from the scope of 3.0 and postponed to
>> 3.1
>> > >    release. To do so I suggest to range all features by two
>> parameters:
>> > >    criticality for 3.0 and amount of breaking changes. 3.0 scope
>> should
>> > >    include features of high criticality AND features with a big
>> amount of
>> > >    breaking changes. All other features can be made optional.
>> > >
>> > >    3. *Development transparency.* Development of all components
>> should be
>> > >    made as transparent for everyone as possible. Any contributor
>> should be
>> > >    able to look over any component at any stage of development. To
>> achieve
>> > >    this I suggest to create a separate public repository dedicated
>> for 3.0
>> > >    development. It will make the code available for everyone but when
>> > >    development of 3.0 is done we won't loose any stars of our current
>> > >    repository as we merge dev repo into main one and drop dev.
>> > >
>> > > Do these ideas make sense to you? Are there any concerns not covered
>> by
>> > > these suggestions?
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:36 PM Kseniya Romanova <
>> [hidden email]
>> > > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Here are the slides from Alexey Goncharuk. Let's think this over and
>> > > > continue on Monday:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://go.gridgain.com/rs/491-TWR-806/images/Ignite_3_Plans_and_development_process.pdf
>> > > >
>> > > > чт, 5 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:13, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Folks,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Should we perform cleanup work before (r)evolutional changes?
>> > > > > My huge proposal is to get rid of things which we don't need
>> anyway
>> > > > > - local caches,
>> > > > > - strange tx modes,
>> > > > > - code overcomplexity because of RollingUpgrade feature never
>> attended
>> > > at
>> > > > > AI,
>> > > > > - etc,
>> > > > > before choosing the way.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:31 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Ksenia, thanks for scheduling this on such short notice!
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > As for the original topic, I do support Alexey's idea. We're not
>> > > going
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > rewrite anything from scratch, as most of the components are
>> going to
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > moved as-is or with minimal modifications. However, the changes
>> that
>> > > > are
>> > > > > > proposed imply serious rework of the core parts of the code,
>> which
>> > > are
>> > > > > not
>> > > > > > properly decoupled from each other and from other parts. This
>> makes
>> > > the
>> > > > > > incremental approach borderline impossible. Developing in a new
>> repo,
>> > > > > > however, addresses this concern. As a bonus, we can also
>> refactor the
>> > > > > code,
>> > > > > > introduce better decoupling, get rid of kernel context, and
>> develop
>> > > > unit
>> > > > > > tests (finally!).
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Basically, this proposal only affects the *process*, not the
>> set of
>> > > > > changes
>> > > > > > we had discussed before. Ignite 3.0 is our unique chance to make
>> > > things
>> > > > > > right.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > -Val
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:06 AM Kseniya Romanova <
>> > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Pavel, all the interesting points will be anyway published
>> here in
>> > > > > > English
>> > > > > > > (as the principal "if it's not on devlist it doesn't
>> happened" is
>> > > > still
>> > > > > > > relevant). This is just a quick call for a group of
>> developers.
>> > > Later
>> > > > > we
>> > > > > > > can do a separate presentation of idea and discussion in
>> English as
>> > > > we
>> > > > > > did
>> > > > > > > for the Ignite 3.0 draft of changes.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> [hidden email]
>> > > >:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Kseniya,
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Thanks for scheduling this call.
>> > > > > > > > Do you think we can switch to English if non-Russian
>> speaking
>> > > > > community
>> > > > > > > > members decide to join?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:32 PM Kseniya Romanova <
>> > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Let's do this community discussion open. Here's the link
>> on
>> > > zoom
>> > > > > call
>> > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > Russian for Friday 6 PM:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/events/274360378/
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 12:49, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Time works for me.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > 3 нояб. 2020 г., в 12:40, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > написал(а):
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay,
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > I am up for the call. I will try to explain my
>> reasoning in
>> > > > > > greater
>> > > > > > > > > > detail
>> > > > > > > > > > > and will be glad to hear the concerns. Will this
>> Friday,
>> > > Nov
>> > > > > 6th,
>> > > > > > > > work?
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 10:09, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >> Igniters, should we have a call for this topic?
>> > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 18:53, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >> написал(а):
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> not intend to rewrite everything from scratch
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be moved
>> to
>> > > > Ignite
>> > > > > 3
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>> Alexey, thank you for the explanation, this
>> addresses all
>> > > > of
>> > > > > my
>> > > > > > > > > > concerns.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:43 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > > > > > >> [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Hi, Igniters.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> * AFAIU, we need a new repo if we want to apply
>> > > different
>> > > > > > > > > restrictions
>> > > > > > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> pull requests,
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> otherwise I see no difference for myself.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> E.g. make static analysis (do we have?), compile,
>> > > styles,
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > javadoc
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> checks mandatory.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> I think that relaxed requirements here will lead
>> to bad
>> > > > > > product
>> > > > > > > > > > quality.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> * Agree with Pavel, we should 'keep' integrations
>> tests
>> > > > > > somehow.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> During active development tests will be broken
>> most of
>> > > > time,
>> > > > > > so,
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> I'd port them e.g. suite-by-suite once we will
>> have a
>> > > > stable
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > >> featured
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> environment to run them and of course make test's
>> code
>> > > > clear
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > avoid
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> bad/non-relevant ones.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> * I like bottom-up approach.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> With it we could make a better framework. I mean
>> clear
>> > > > > > component
>> > > > > > > > > > >> lifecycle,
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> component wiring mechanics, general methods to
>> approach
>> > > > core
>> > > > > > > > > > components
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> such as exchange/communication
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> to avoid code mess like we have in ExchangeFuture
>> with
>> > > all
>> > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > > custom
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> callbacks for each component, interfaces like
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> PartitionsExchangeAware,
>> IgniteChangeGlobalStateSupport
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> a pack of
>> > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > start/stop/onKernalStart/onPluginStart/onActivate/onDisconnected
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> and so on in various unexpected places.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Hope, we will be able to port most of the good
>> code to
>> > > the
>> > > > > new
>> > > > > > > > > > framework
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> version.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Nikolay, Pavel,
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback! First of all, I wanted to
>> > > stress
>> > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > do
>> > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> intend to rewrite everything from scratch (I
>> never used
>> > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > phrase).
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> There
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> are significant parts of code that would be moved
>> with
>> > > > > > minimal
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> modifications. Second, I never said that we will
>> get
>> > > rid
>> > > > of
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > old
>> > > > > > > > > > >> tests
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> codebase. Every single test from Ignite 2.x
>> should be
>> > > > moved
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > Ignite 3
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> My point is that for some parts of the code a
>> clean
>> > > > > bottom-up
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> implementation will be cheaper in many ways. Let
>> me
>> > > give
>> > > > > you
>> > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > few
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> concrete
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> examples:
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  - I think no one can object that we need a
>> cleanly
>> > > > > separated
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> persistence
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  layer for Ignite. There is a very raw draft IEP
>> for
>> > > this
>> > > > > > > > already.
>> > > > > > > > > On
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> the
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  other hand, I think we also can agree that we
>> need a
>> > > > > > > split-brain
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> resistant
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  replication protocol for caches. There is also
>> an IEP
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > > this.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Neither
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  the changes is a good fit for 2.x because they
>> are
>> > > > likely
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > >> introduce
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  breaking changes in the persistence layer,
>> > > configuration
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > >> behavior.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  Additionally, these components are now tightly
>> > > coupled,
>> > > > so
>> > > > > > > there
>> > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > >> no
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> way
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  these two changes can be implemented in parallel
>> and
>> > > > then
>> > > > > > > merged
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> together
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  easily. So what we will end up with is having to
>> > > > implement
>> > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> changes
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  sequentially, fixing all existing tests twice,
>> and
>> > > > > > essentially
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> throwing
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  away half of the work done because the other
>> part of
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > change
>> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  re-implemented
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  - Similar example goes with getting rid of
>> > > > > > > IgniteInternalFuture
>> > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  replacing it with CompletableFuture, and any
>> other
>> > > > change
>> > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > >> touches
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  asynchronous part of the code.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Third, I do not see how this choice affects the
>> UX of
>> > > > > Ignite.
>> > > > > > > The
>> > > > > > > > > end
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> user
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> experience must be fixed in the IEP regardless of
>> the
>> > > > > > > development
>> > > > > > > > > > >> process
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and the fact that we have gaps in this area in
>> Ignite
>> > > 2.x
>> > > > > > just
>> > > > > > > > > > confirms
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> that.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Pavel, agree that a repo/branch is a
>> technicality, I
>> > > > guess
>> > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> reformulate,
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> my point is that we might agree to have a single
>> > > > > development
>> > > > > > > > master
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> branch
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> with 'disassembled' end-to-end functionality for
>> some
>> > > > > period
>> > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > time
>> > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> speed up development, and re-assemble the core
>> features
>> > > > > after
>> > > > > > > > > having
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> submodules tested independently.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Nikolay,
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
>> > > > support,
>> > > > > > > etc.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> This is not very specific. In the end, resources
>> are
>> > > > > limited
>> > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > >> will
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> not be able to drive both tracks simultaneously,
>> > > > especially
>> > > > > > > > after a
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> couple
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of features having been implemented for Ignite
>> 3.0. If
>> > > > > there
>> > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > indeed
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> some major changes that we want to do in Ignite
>> 2.x
>> > > > instead
>> > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > putting
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> effort into 3.0 - let's discuss them. I am just
>> not
>> > > aware
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > > > any,
>> > > > > > > > > > >> that's
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> why I am eager to move forward with Ignite 3.0.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
>> > > without
>> > > > > > > > breaking
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> backward
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> compatibility.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x
>> with all
>> > > > > it’s
>> > > > > > > > > issues.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> These changes will be covered by end-to-end tests
>> and
>> > > > > > migrated
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > >> Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 3.0, so I see no issues here.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Finally, Anton & Nikolay
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I do not have an estimate for this simply because
>> the
>> > > > > > activity
>> > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> community-driven and it depends on the number of
>> people
>> > > > > > willing
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> contribute. With the current pace, I would hope
>> to have
>> > > > an
>> > > > > RC
>> > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> 3.0
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to be ready by the end of 2021. My gut feeling is
>> that
>> > > by
>> > > > > > > moving
>> > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> incremental changes, we will not be able to
>> implement
>> > > > even
>> > > > > > half
>> > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wishlist by that time.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I doubt that releasing several major releases with
>> > > > breaking
>> > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > > >> will
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> make Ignite users happy either because each
>> upgrade
>> > > will
>> > > > > cost
>> > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> users
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> money, so the fewer major versions we release, the
>> > > > better.
>> > > > > > Thus
>> > > > > > > > my
>> > > > > > > > > > wish
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> include all breaking changes in one release.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I'll be now quiet for a while, let's see what
>> other
>> > > > > community
>> > > > > > > > > members
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> think.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1. Rewriting from scratch is never a good idea.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We don't want to follow the path of Netscape and
>> lose
>> > > > all
>> > > > > > our
>> > > > > > > > > users
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> by the time we have a working 3.0 [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2. Not sure about new repo - seems like some
>> pain and
>> > > no
>> > > > > > gain,
>> > > > > > > > > > what's
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> the
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> problem with a branch?
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3. We should keep existing integration tests when
>> > > > > possible.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have accumulated a lot of edge case knowledge
>> over
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > years,
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it is not a good idea to send all of that down
>> the
>> > > > drain.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes, integration tests are slow, but they are
>> the most
>> > > > > > > valuable.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I think we can move more stuff into nightly runs
>> and
>> > > > have
>> > > > > a
>> > > > > > > fast
>> > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> modern
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> basic suite.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Alexey, you are much more familiar with the
>> Ignite
>> > > core
>> > > > > > > codebase
>> > > > > > > > > > than
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> most
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> of us,
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can you please explain in more detail which
>> particular
>> > > > > > > feature,
>> > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > >> your
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> opinion,
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> mandates this "start from scratch" approach?
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Is it really not possible at all to follow a less
>> > > > radical
>> > > > > > way?
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:25 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I think that «rewriting from scratch» approach
>> has a
>> > > > high
>> > > > > > > risk
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> make
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> new
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> features unusable.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> At the time Ignite2 was started no-one wants to
>> do
>> > > bad
>> > > > UX
>> > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > bad
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> features.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Nevertheless, it happen.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I think we can avoid it with the Ignite3 and
>> > > successors
>> > > > > if
>> > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> move
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> step by step without keeping backward
>> compatibility
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With the step by step approach, we can focus on
>> each
>> > > > > > > component
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> separately.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement
>> for
>> > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > 2.x?
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing,
>> zookeeper
>> > > > > support,
>> > > > > > > etc.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
>> > > > without
>> > > > > > > > breaking
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> backward
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> compatibility.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x
>> with
>> > > all
>> > > > > it’s
>> > > > > > > > > issues.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 14:09, Anton Vinogradov <
>> > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> написал(а):
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Alexey,
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Do we have any estimates of how fast we'll be
>> able
>> > > to
>> > > > > gain
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> production-ready
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> AI 3.0 in case of a "new repo" choice?
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:01 PM Alexey
>> Goncharuk <
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to
>> implement for
>> > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > 2.x?
>> > > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> think
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> once
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> we commence working on Ignite 3.0, we should
>> > > > gradually
>> > > > > > > cease
>> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> activity
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> on Ignite 2.x to mere bugfixes because such
>> > > parallel
>> > > > > > > > > development
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> will
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> overwhelming regardless of how we choose to
>> > > proceed.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:38, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> :
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> To be clear:
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest creating a new repository
>> for
>> > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > 3.0
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> (perhaps, a
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> new
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> clean branch, but a new repo looks nicer to
>> me)
>> > > and
>> > > > a
>> > > > > > new
>> > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 3.0
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TeamCity project.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 for new Team City project.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 for new branch for Ignite3.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -1 for new repo.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:35, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think it will hurt our project more than
>> help.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Developing new features for 2 separate
>> branches
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> different
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> APIs
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and internal structure is overwhelming
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should relax a bit requirements for
>> > > > Ignite3?
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should move step by step and make
>> > > Ignite3
>> > > > > with
>> > > > > > > new
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> configuration than Ignite4 with new
>> transactions,
>> > > > etc?
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:14, Alexey Goncharuk
>> <
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to pitch a rather radical idea
>> > > regarding
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> 3.0
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> development which has occurred to me some
>> time
>> > > > ago.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We already have several IEPs targeted to
>> Ignite
>> > > > 3.0
>> > > > > > > which
>> > > > > > > > > > imply
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> major
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> changes to the codebase (the change in
>> > > replication
>> > > > > > > > protocol
>> > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> thus
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> transactions, change in binary format,
>> updated
>> > > > > > > > metastorage,
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> etc).
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> also
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> planned significant changes in public APIs:
>> > > > > > > configuration
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> format
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> change,
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> improvements in cache APIs, SQL APIs,
>> > > transaction
>> > > > > mode
>> > > > > > > > > rework.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> The
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wishlist
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of changes for Ignite 3.0 is huge.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I was wondering whether it makes sense
>> to
>> > > try
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > > change
>> > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> old
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> codebase, or start with a new baseline and
>> move
>> > > > old
>> > > > > > > pieces
>> > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> code
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> do
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not require significant rework.
>> Personally, I
>> > > > would
>> > > > > go
>> > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> second
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> option for the following reasons:
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We have a chance to shift the development
>> > > > paradigm
>> > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> project
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> introduce the practice of true unit-tests.
>> In
>> > > the
>> > > > > new
>> > > > > > > > > baseline
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> at
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> beginning there will be no ability to run
>> an
>> > > > > > end-to-end
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> scenario,
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> thus
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> will be forced to write unit-tests. So
>> far, such
>> > > > > > > practice
>> > > > > > > > > was
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> hard
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> implement because of tight coupling between
>> > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > components
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> inability
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to instantiate components without an
>> instance of
>> > > > > > > > > > KernalContext.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> For
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> example, we should be able to thoroughly
>> test
>> > > > > internal
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> primitives,
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> such as
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol (without actual
>> > > > communication),
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> distributed
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> metastorage contracts, persistence layer,
>> etc.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will significantly reduce the
>> development
>> > > > cycle
>> > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> beginning
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (right now the RunAll takes two hours of
>> > > > > astronomical
>> > > > > > > time
>> > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> empty
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TC;
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in the new approach developer will be able
>> to
>> > > run
>> > > > > ALL
>> > > > > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> locally
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> matter of minutes)
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We can get rid of TC bot and enforce
>> green TC
>> > > by
>> > > > > > > > > integrating
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> TC
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> build
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> results with GitHub PRs (the same way
>> Travis is
>> > > > > > > currently
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> integrated
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to PR
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> check). We should restrict PR merge
>> without a TC
>> > > > > check
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will still have to re-write all
>> tests, but
>> > > > only
>> > > > > > > once.
>> > > > > > > > > If
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> we
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> try
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> modify the old codebase, we would need to
>> modify
>> > > > all
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> for
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> every
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> major change (public API change,
>> configuration
>> > > > > change)
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will have fewer conflicts when working
>> > > > > together.
>> > > > > > > For
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> example,
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot imagine how one would merge two
>> changes
>> > > of
>> > > > > > > getting
>> > > > > > > > > rid
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> of
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteFuture and changes in replication
>> > > protocol,
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > example
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Technically, I would suggest creating a new
>> > > > > repository
>> > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3.0
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a new clean branch, but a new
>> repo
>> > > looks
>> > > > > > nicer
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > me)
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and a
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> new
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3.0 TeamCity project.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> While it may seem quite radical, I do
>> believe
>> > > that
>> > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> approach
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> will
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> give
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> us more benefits than trying to make such
>> major
>> > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> existing
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. If needed, let's schedule a
>> discord
>> > > chat
>> > > > > > like
>> > > > > > > > > before
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> discuss
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> --
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Alexei Scherbakov
>>
>

[Nikolay Izhikov-2]

Hello, Valentin.

> Nikolay, Maxim, are you OK with this route?

-1 to have another repo for Ignite3 development.

> 13 нояб. 2020 г., в 03:04, Valentin Kulichenko <[hidden email]> написал(а):
>
> Folks,
>
> We already have multiple IEPs for Ignite 3.0, and as far as I know, there are contributors that would like to work on them (or probably already started). That said, we should make a decision as soon as possible.
>
> At this point, it doesn't seem that there are any strong objections to the technical side of things. So I would suggest the following:
>
> 1. Proceed with Alexey's approach to the development process, as it seems to be the best (in my opinion - the only) way to address all the technical concerns and issues expressed in the thread. We'll start by creating a new repo and a new TC project.
> 2. Start a separate discussion around transparency. If there are any changes we need to make to our contributor guidelines, I am happy to talk them through, but I don't think it's reasonable to delay feature development because of this. In the short term, I will make sure that everything that happens within the new repo is as open to the community as possible.
>
> Nikolay, Maxim, are you OK with this route?
>
> -Val
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 4:55 PM Valentin Kulichenko <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Maxim,
>
> 2.x and 3.x will have to coexist for some time - I don't see how we can avoid this considering the set of proposed changes. That said, we effectively will need to have two "masters" - one for each major version. Master for 3.x can technically be a branch in the existing repo, but having a separate repo seems cleaner, simply because it will not be a "branch" in the traditional sense.
>
> Note that the new repo will still be under the Apache org, with the same set of committers, managed by the community, etc. All the development happening for 3.0 must follow the rules that we currently have (if anything, it's an opportunity to improve those rules).
>
> As I said during the call on Friday, I strongly believe that if there is a transparency issue, it will exist regardless of the approach we choose for 3.0. If community members develop without IEPs or public discussions, this will happen for both 2.x and 3.x unless we address this separately. I don't see how this is related to Alexey's suggestion, which targets *technical* issues with the product more than anything else. This a way to achieve better modularity, introduce better coverage with unit tests, reduce conflicts during development, etc.
>
> Coming back to transparency, let's identify the issues and fix them. It probably makes sense to have a separate discussion on this topic.
>
> -Val
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:05 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  Sergey,
>
>
> Your summary makes sense to me.
>
> However, how we come up from *Development transparency* to *create a
> separate public repository dedicated for 3.0*? For me *development
> transparency* is about making changes in the master branch. These
> changes will definitely be seen by all the Ignite developers.
>
> A dedicated public repository is technically public and visible for
> everyone, but it allows development without IEPs, without public
> discussion (since all the code changes are not related to the master
> branch) it also allows a large number of assumptions and deviations
> (like code-style violations). It also not about *development
> transparency* since developers which are working on 3.0 is only a
> subset of all Ignite developers which may continue working on 2.x. For
> me, this would be a huge step backwards.
>
> Ignite veterans should remember how long the branch stabilization took
> for the 2.x version with the PDS.
>
>
> I think each breaking change should be passed through the master branch.
>
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 22:18, Alexei Scherbakov
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Makes sense to me.
> >
> > вт, 10 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:47, Sergey Chugunov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > I thought over Friday meeting ideas and concerns and summarized them in
> > > these three points:
> > >
> > >
> > >    1. *Components design unification approach.* New proposed components
> > >    will be developed by different contributors, but they need to be unified
> > >    and should integrate with each other easily. To ensure that I suggest
> > >    calling an architecture group that will create design guidelines for all
> > >    components and high-level overview of overall architecture. How code is
> > >    split into components, what are component boundaries, how component
> > >    lifecycle works and what are its interfaces - all these and other
> > > questions
> > >    should be covered.
> > >
> > >    2. *Scope management.* Apache 3.0 should be implemented within a
> > >    reasonable time, so we need some procedure to decide whether a
> > > particular
> > >    feature should be dropped from the scope of 3.0 and postponed to 3.1
> > >    release. To do so I suggest to range all features by two parameters:
> > >    criticality for 3.0 and amount of breaking changes. 3.0 scope should
> > >    include features of high criticality AND features with a big amount of
> > >    breaking changes. All other features can be made optional.
> > >
> > >    3. *Development transparency.* Development of all components should be
> > >    made as transparent for everyone as possible. Any contributor should be
> > >    able to look over any component at any stage of development. To achieve
> > >    this I suggest to create a separate public repository dedicated for 3.0
> > >    development. It will make the code available for everyone but when
> > >    development of 3.0 is done we won't loose any stars of our current
> > >    repository as we merge dev repo into main one and drop dev.
> > >
> > > Do these ideas make sense to you? Are there any concerns not covered by
> > > these suggestions?
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:36 PM Kseniya Romanova <[hidden email]
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here are the slides from Alexey Goncharuk. Let's think this over and
> > > > continue on Monday:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > https://go.gridgain.com/rs/491-TWR-806/images/Ignite_3_Plans_and_development_process.pdf
> > > >
> > > > чт, 5 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:13, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > Folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Should we perform cleanup work before (r)evolutional changes?
> > > > > My huge proposal is to get rid of things which we don't need anyway
> > > > > - local caches,
> > > > > - strange tx modes,
> > > > > - code overcomplexity because of RollingUpgrade feature never attended
> > > at
> > > > > AI,
> > > > > - etc,
> > > > > before choosing the way.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:31 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ksenia, thanks for scheduling this on such short notice!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As for the original topic, I do support Alexey's idea. We're not
> > > going
> > > > to
> > > > > > rewrite anything from scratch, as most of the components are going to
> > > > be
> > > > > > moved as-is or with minimal modifications. However, the changes that
> > > > are
> > > > > > proposed imply serious rework of the core parts of the code, which
> > > are
> > > > > not
> > > > > > properly decoupled from each other and from other parts. This makes
> > > the
> > > > > > incremental approach borderline impossible. Developing in a new repo,
> > > > > > however, addresses this concern. As a bonus, we can also refactor the
> > > > > code,
> > > > > > introduce better decoupling, get rid of kernel context, and develop
> > > > unit
> > > > > > tests (finally!).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Basically, this proposal only affects the *process*, not the set of
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > we had discussed before. Ignite 3.0 is our unique chance to make
> > > things
> > > > > > right.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Val
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:06 AM Kseniya Romanova <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pavel, all the interesting points will be anyway published here in
> > > > > > English
> > > > > > > (as the principal "if it's not on devlist it doesn't happened" is
> > > > still
> > > > > > > relevant). This is just a quick call for a group of developers.
> > > Later
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > can do a separate presentation of idea and discussion in English as
> > > > we
> > > > > > did
> > > > > > > for the Ignite 3.0 draft of changes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kseniya,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for scheduling this call.
> > > > > > > > Do you think we can switch to English if non-Russian speaking
> > > > > community
> > > > > > > > members decide to join?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:32 PM Kseniya Romanova <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Let's do this community discussion open. Here's the link on
> > > zoom
> > > > > call
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > Russian for Friday 6 PM:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/events/274360378/
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 12:49, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Time works for me.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 3 нояб. 2020 г., в 12:40, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > написал(а):
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I am up for the call. I will try to explain my reasoning in
> > > > > > greater
> > > > > > > > > > detail
> > > > > > > > > > > and will be glad to hear the concerns. Will this Friday,
> > > Nov
> > > > > 6th,
> > > > > > > > work?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 10:09, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Igniters, should we have a call for this topic?
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 18:53, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> написал(а):
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> not intend to rewrite everything from scratch
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be moved to
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > 3
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Alexey, thank you for the explanation, this addresses all
> > > > of
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > concerns.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:43 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Hi, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> * AFAIU, we need a new repo if we want to apply
> > > different
> > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> pull requests,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> otherwise I see no difference for myself.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> E.g. make static analysis (do we have?), compile,
> > > styles,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > javadoc
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> checks mandatory.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> I think that relaxed requirements here will lead to bad
> > > > > > product
> > > > > > > > > > quality.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> * Agree with Pavel, we should 'keep' integrations tests
> > > > > > somehow.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> During active development tests will be broken most of
> > > > time,
> > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> I'd port them e.g. suite-by-suite once we will have a
> > > > stable
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> featured
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> environment to run them and of course make test's code
> > > > clear
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> bad/non-relevant ones.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> * I like bottom-up approach.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> With it we could make a better framework. I mean clear
> > > > > > component
> > > > > > > > > > >> lifecycle,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> component wiring mechanics, general methods to approach
> > > > core
> > > > > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> such as exchange/communication
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> to avoid code mess like we have in ExchangeFuture with
> > > all
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > custom
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> callbacks for each component, interfaces like
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> PartitionsExchangeAware, IgniteChangeGlobalStateSupport
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> a pack of
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > start/stop/onKernalStart/onPluginStart/onActivate/onDisconnected
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> and so on in various unexpected places.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Hope, we will be able to port most of the good code to
> > > the
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > framework
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> version.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Nikolay, Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback! First of all, I wanted to
> > > stress
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> intend to rewrite everything from scratch (I never used
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > phrase).
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> There
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> are significant parts of code that would be moved with
> > > > > > minimal
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> modifications. Second, I never said that we will get
> > > rid
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > >> tests
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> codebase. Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be
> > > > moved
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > Ignite 3
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> My point is that for some parts of the code a clean
> > > > > bottom-up
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> implementation will be cheaper in many ways. Let me
> > > give
> > > > > you
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> concrete
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> examples:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  - I think no one can object that we need a cleanly
> > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> persistence
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  layer for Ignite. There is a very raw draft IEP for
> > > this
> > > > > > > > already.
> > > > > > > > > On
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  other hand, I think we also can agree that we need a
> > > > > > > split-brain
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> resistant
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  replication protocol for caches. There is also an IEP
> > > > for
> > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Neither
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  the changes is a good fit for 2.x because they are
> > > > likely
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> introduce
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  breaking changes in the persistence layer,
> > > configuration
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> behavior.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  Additionally, these components are now tightly
> > > coupled,
> > > > so
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >> no
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> way
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  these two changes can be implemented in parallel and
> > > > then
> > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> together
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  easily. So what we will end up with is having to
> > > > implement
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> changes
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  sequentially, fixing all existing tests twice, and
> > > > > > essentially
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> throwing
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  away half of the work done because the other part of
> > > the
> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  re-implemented
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  - Similar example goes with getting rid of
> > > > > > > IgniteInternalFuture
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  replacing it with CompletableFuture, and any other
> > > > change
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> touches
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>  asynchronous part of the code.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Third, I do not see how this choice affects the UX of
> > > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > end
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> user
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> experience must be fixed in the IEP regardless of the
> > > > > > > development
> > > > > > > > > > >> process
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and the fact that we have gaps in this area in Ignite
> > > 2.x
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > confirms
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> that.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Pavel, agree that a repo/branch is a technicality, I
> > > > guess
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> reformulate,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> my point is that we might agree to have a single
> > > > > development
> > > > > > > > master
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> branch
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> with 'disassembled' end-to-end functionality for some
> > > > > period
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> speed up development, and re-assemble the core features
> > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> submodules tested independently.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> > > > support,
> > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> This is not very specific. In the end, resources are
> > > > > limited
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> not be able to drive both tracks simultaneously,
> > > > especially
> > > > > > > > after a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> couple
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of features having been implemented for Ignite 3.0. If
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > indeed
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> some major changes that we want to do in Ignite 2.x
> > > > instead
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > putting
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> effort into 3.0 - let's discuss them. I am just not
> > > aware
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > any,
> > > > > > > > > > >> that's
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> why I am eager to move forward with Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
> > > without
> > > > > > > > breaking
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> backward
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> compatibility.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with all
> > > > > it’s
> > > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> These changes will be covered by end-to-end tests and
> > > > > > migrated
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 3.0, so I see no issues here.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Finally, Anton & Nikolay
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I do not have an estimate for this simply because the
> > > > > > activity
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> community-driven and it depends on the number of people
> > > > > > willing
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> contribute. With the current pace, I would hope to have
> > > > an
> > > > > RC
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to be ready by the end of 2021. My gut feeling is that
> > > by
> > > > > > > moving
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> incremental changes, we will not be able to implement
> > > > even
> > > > > > half
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wishlist by that time.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I doubt that releasing several major releases with
> > > > breaking
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> make Ignite users happy either because each upgrade
> > > will
> > > > > cost
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> users
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> money, so the fewer major versions we release, the
> > > > better.
> > > > > > Thus
> > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > wish
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> include all breaking changes in one release.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I'll be now quiet for a while, let's see what other
> > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > members
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> think.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1. Rewriting from scratch is never a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We don't want to follow the path of Netscape and lose
> > > > all
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > users
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> by the time we have a working 3.0 [1]
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2. Not sure about new repo - seems like some pain and
> > > no
> > > > > > gain,
> > > > > > > > > > what's
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> problem with a branch?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3. We should keep existing integration tests when
> > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have accumulated a lot of edge case knowledge over
> > > > the
> > > > > > > years,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it is not a good idea to send all of that down the
> > > > drain.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes, integration tests are slow, but they are the most
> > > > > > > valuable.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I think we can move more stuff into nightly runs and
> > > > have
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > fast
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> modern
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> basic suite.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Alexey, you are much more familiar with the Ignite
> > > core
> > > > > > > codebase
> > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> most
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> of us,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can you please explain in more detail which particular
> > > > > > > feature,
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >> your
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> opinion,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> mandates this "start from scratch" approach?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Is it really not possible at all to follow a less
> > > > radical
> > > > > > way?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:25 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I think that «rewriting from scratch» approach has a
> > > > high
> > > > > > > risk
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> make
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> features unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> At the time Ignite2 was started no-one wants to do
> > > bad
> > > > UX
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > bad
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> features.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Nevertheless, it happen.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I think we can avoid it with the Ignite3 and
> > > successors
> > > > > if
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> move
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> step by step without keeping backward compatibility
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With the step by step approach, we can focus on each
> > > > > > > component
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> separately.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement for
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > 2.x?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> > > > > support,
> > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
> > > > without
> > > > > > > > breaking
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> backward
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> compatibility.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with
> > > all
> > > > > it’s
> > > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 14:09, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> написал(а):
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Do we have any estimates of how fast we'll be able
> > > to
> > > > > gain
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> production-ready
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> AI 3.0 in case of a "new repo" choice?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:01 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement for
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > 2.x?
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> think
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> once
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> we commence working on Ignite 3.0, we should
> > > > gradually
> > > > > > > cease
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> activity
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> on Ignite 2.x to mere bugfixes because such
> > > parallel
> > > > > > > > > development
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> overwhelming regardless of how we choose to
> > > proceed.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:38, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> :
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> To be clear:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest creating a new repository for
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> (perhaps, a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> clean branch, but a new repo looks nicer to me)
> > > and
> > > > a
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TeamCity project.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 for new Team City project.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 for new branch for Ignite3.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -1 for new repo.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:35, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think it will hurt our project more than help.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Developing new features for 2 separate branches
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> different
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and internal structure is overwhelming
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should relax a bit requirements for
> > > > Ignite3?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should move step by step and make
> > > Ignite3
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> configuration than Ignite4 with new transactions,
> > > > etc?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:14, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to pitch a rather radical idea
> > > regarding
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> development which has occurred to me some time
> > > > ago.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We already have several IEPs targeted to Ignite
> > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > imply
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> major
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> changes to the codebase (the change in
> > > replication
> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> thus
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> transactions, change in binary format, updated
> > > > > > > > metastorage,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> etc).
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> planned significant changes in public APIs:
> > > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> format
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> change,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> improvements in cache APIs, SQL APIs,
> > > transaction
> > > > > mode
> > > > > > > > > rework.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> The
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wishlist
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of changes for Ignite 3.0 is huge.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I was wondering whether it makes sense to
> > > try
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> old
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> codebase, or start with a new baseline and move
> > > > old
> > > > > > > pieces
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> code
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> not require significant rework. Personally, I
> > > > would
> > > > > go
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> second
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> option for the following reasons:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We have a chance to shift the development
> > > > paradigm
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> introduce the practice of true unit-tests. In
> > > the
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > baseline
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> at
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> beginning there will be no ability to run an
> > > > > > end-to-end
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> scenario,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> thus
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> will be forced to write unit-tests. So far, such
> > > > > > > practice
> > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> hard
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> implement because of tight coupling between
> > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> inability
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to instantiate components without an instance of
> > > > > > > > > > KernalContext.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> For
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> example, we should be able to thoroughly test
> > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> primitives,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> such as
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol (without actual
> > > > communication),
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> distributed
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> metastorage contracts, persistence layer, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will significantly reduce the development
> > > > cycle
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> beginning
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (right now the RunAll takes two hours of
> > > > > astronomical
> > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> empty
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> TC;
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in the new approach developer will be able to
> > > run
> > > > > ALL
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> locally
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> matter of minutes)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We can get rid of TC bot and enforce green TC
> > > by
> > > > > > > > > integrating
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> TC
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> build
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> results with GitHub PRs (the same way Travis is
> > > > > > > currently
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> integrated
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to PR
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> check). We should restrict PR merge without a TC
> > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will still have to re-write all tests, but
> > > > only
> > > > > > > once.
> > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> try
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> modify the old codebase, we would need to modify
> > > > all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> every
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> major change (public API change, configuration
> > > > > change)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - We will have fewer conflicts when working
> > > > > together.
> > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> example,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot imagine how one would merge two changes
> > > of
> > > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteFuture and changes in replication
> > > protocol,
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Technically, I would suggest creating a new
> > > > > repository
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a new clean branch, but a new repo
> > > looks
> > > > > > nicer
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > me)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3.0 TeamCity project.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> While it may seem quite radical, I do believe
> > > that
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> approach
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> give
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> us more benefits than trying to make such major
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> existing
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. If needed, let's schedule a discord
> > > chat
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> discuss
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> this.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Alexei Scherbakov

[Nikolay Izhikov-2]

My suggestion:

1. Reduce Ignite3 scope to the following:
        a. Delete all deprecated API and support of obsolete internal protocols.
        b. Implement IEP-61 - Common Replication Infrastructure
        c. Implement new Ignite management tool ignitectl as suggested during Ignite3 discussion.

2. Implement and release following improvements like transactions, Calcite based SQL, etc in the ongoing releases - Ignite 4, 5, 6

My concern against separate Ignite 3 repo is the following:

1. We spread community to the two very separated part - Ignite3 developers and Ignite2 maintainers.  believe it’s bad for our community.
        That can lead to the situation when we don’t fix critical or blocker issueds «because they will not exists in Ignite3»
        That will lead to the solutions never reviewed or reviewed poorly.

2. It seems for me that current scope of Ignite3 is too big to be implemented in any reasonable time.

> 13 нояб. 2020 г., в 10:57, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> написал(а):
>
> Hello, Valentin.
>
>> Nikolay, Maxim, are you OK with this route?
>
> -1 to have another repo for Ignite3 development.
>
>> 13 нояб. 2020 г., в 03:04, Valentin Kulichenko <[hidden email]> написал(а):
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> We already have multiple IEPs for Ignite 3.0, and as far as I know, there are contributors that would like to work on them (or probably already started). That said, we should make a decision as soon as possible.
>>
>> At this point, it doesn't seem that there are any strong objections to the technical side of things. So I would suggest the following:
>>
>> 1. Proceed with Alexey's approach to the development process, as it seems to be the best (in my opinion - the only) way to address all the technical concerns and issues expressed in the thread. We'll start by creating a new repo and a new TC project.
>> 2. Start a separate discussion around transparency. If there are any changes we need to make to our contributor guidelines, I am happy to talk them through, but I don't think it's reasonable to delay feature development because of this. In the short term, I will make sure that everything that happens within the new repo is as open to the community as possible.
>>
>> Nikolay, Maxim, are you OK with this route?
>>
>> -Val
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 4:55 PM Valentin Kulichenko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Maxim,
>>
>> 2.x and 3.x will have to coexist for some time - I don't see how we can avoid this considering the set of proposed changes. That said, we effectively will need to have two "masters" - one for each major version. Master for 3.x can technically be a branch in the existing repo, but having a separate repo seems cleaner, simply because it will not be a "branch" in the traditional sense.
>>
>> Note that the new repo will still be under the Apache org, with the same set of committers, managed by the community, etc. All the development happening for 3.0 must follow the rules that we currently have (if anything, it's an opportunity to improve those rules).
>>
>> As I said during the call on Friday, I strongly believe that if there is a transparency issue, it will exist regardless of the approach we choose for 3.0. If community members develop without IEPs or public discussions, this will happen for both 2.x and 3.x unless we address this separately. I don't see how this is related to Alexey's suggestion, which targets *technical* issues with the product more than anything else. This a way to achieve better modularity, introduce better coverage with unit tests, reduce conflicts during development, etc.
>>
>> Coming back to transparency, let's identify the issues and fix them. It probably makes sense to have a separate discussion on this topic.
>>
>> -Val
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:05 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Sergey,
>>
>>
>> Your summary makes sense to me.
>>
>> However, how we come up from *Development transparency* to *create a
>> separate public repository dedicated for 3.0*? For me *development
>> transparency* is about making changes in the master branch. These
>> changes will definitely be seen by all the Ignite developers.
>>
>> A dedicated public repository is technically public and visible for
>> everyone, but it allows development without IEPs, without public
>> discussion (since all the code changes are not related to the master
>> branch) it also allows a large number of assumptions and deviations
>> (like code-style violations). It also not about *development
>> transparency* since developers which are working on 3.0 is only a
>> subset of all Ignite developers which may continue working on 2.x. For
>> me, this would be a huge step backwards.
>>
>> Ignite veterans should remember how long the branch stabilization took
>> for the 2.x version with the PDS.
>>
>>
>> I think each breaking change should be passed through the master branch.
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 22:18, Alexei Scherbakov
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Makes sense to me.
>>>
>>> вт, 10 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:47, Sergey Chugunov <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>> Igniters,
>>>>
>>>> I thought over Friday meeting ideas and concerns and summarized them in
>>>> these three points:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   1. *Components design unification approach.* New proposed components
>>>>   will be developed by different contributors, but they need to be unified
>>>>   and should integrate with each other easily. To ensure that I suggest
>>>>   calling an architecture group that will create design guidelines for all
>>>>   components and high-level overview of overall architecture. How code is
>>>>   split into components, what are component boundaries, how component
>>>>   lifecycle works and what are its interfaces - all these and other
>>>> questions
>>>>   should be covered.
>>>>
>>>>   2. *Scope management.* Apache 3.0 should be implemented within a
>>>>   reasonable time, so we need some procedure to decide whether a
>>>> particular
>>>>   feature should be dropped from the scope of 3.0 and postponed to 3.1
>>>>   release. To do so I suggest to range all features by two parameters:
>>>>   criticality for 3.0 and amount of breaking changes. 3.0 scope should
>>>>   include features of high criticality AND features with a big amount of
>>>>   breaking changes. All other features can be made optional.
>>>>
>>>>   3. *Development transparency.* Development of all components should be
>>>>   made as transparent for everyone as possible. Any contributor should be
>>>>   able to look over any component at any stage of development. To achieve
>>>>   this I suggest to create a separate public repository dedicated for 3.0
>>>>   development. It will make the code available for everyone but when
>>>>   development of 3.0 is done we won't loose any stars of our current
>>>>   repository as we merge dev repo into main one and drop dev.
>>>>
>>>> Do these ideas make sense to you? Are there any concerns not covered by
>>>> these suggestions?
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:36 PM Kseniya Romanova <[hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here are the slides from Alexey Goncharuk. Let's think this over and
>>>>> continue on Monday:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> https://go.gridgain.com/rs/491-TWR-806/images/Ignite_3_Plans_and_development_process.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> чт, 5 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:13, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we perform cleanup work before (r)evolutional changes?
>>>>>> My huge proposal is to get rid of things which we don't need anyway
>>>>>> - local caches,
>>>>>> - strange tx modes,
>>>>>> - code overcomplexity because of RollingUpgrade feature never attended
>>>> at
>>>>>> AI,
>>>>>> - etc,
>>>>>> before choosing the way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:31 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ksenia, thanks for scheduling this on such short notice!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for the original topic, I do support Alexey's idea. We're not
>>>> going
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> rewrite anything from scratch, as most of the components are going to
>>>>> be
>>>>>>> moved as-is or with minimal modifications. However, the changes that
>>>>> are
>>>>>>> proposed imply serious rework of the core parts of the code, which
>>>> are
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> properly decoupled from each other and from other parts. This makes
>>>> the
>>>>>>> incremental approach borderline impossible. Developing in a new repo,
>>>>>>> however, addresses this concern. As a bonus, we can also refactor the
>>>>>> code,
>>>>>>> introduce better decoupling, get rid of kernel context, and develop
>>>>> unit
>>>>>>> tests (finally!).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Basically, this proposal only affects the *process*, not the set of
>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>> we had discussed before. Ignite 3.0 is our unique chance to make
>>>> things
>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:06 AM Kseniya Romanova <
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pavel, all the interesting points will be anyway published here in
>>>>>>> English
>>>>>>>> (as the principal "if it's not on devlist it doesn't happened" is
>>>>> still
>>>>>>>> relevant). This is just a quick call for a group of developers.
>>>> Later
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> can do a separate presentation of idea and discussion in English as
>>>>> we
>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>> for the Ignite 3.0 draft of changes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]
>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kseniya,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for scheduling this call.
>>>>>>>>> Do you think we can switch to English if non-Russian speaking
>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>> members decide to join?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:32 PM Kseniya Romanova <
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let's do this community discussion open. Here's the link on
>>>> zoom
>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> Russian for Friday 6 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/events/274360378/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 12:49, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Time works for me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 нояб. 2020 г., в 12:40, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am up for the call. I will try to explain my reasoning in
>>>>>>> greater
>>>>>>>>>>> detail
>>>>>>>>>>>> and will be glad to hear the concerns. Will this Friday,
>>>> Nov
>>>>>> 6th,
>>>>>>>>> work?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 10:09, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, should we have a call for this topic?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 18:53, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not intend to rewrite everything from scratch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be moved to
>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, thank you for the explanation, this addresses all
>>>>> of
>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>> concerns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:43 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Igniters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * AFAIU, we need a new repo if we want to apply
>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>> restrictions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull requests,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise I see no difference for myself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E.g. make static analysis (do we have?), compile,
>>>> styles,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> javadoc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checks mandatory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that relaxed requirements here will lead to bad
>>>>>>> product
>>>>>>>>>>> quality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Agree with Pavel, we should 'keep' integrations tests
>>>>>>> somehow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> During active development tests will be broken most of
>>>>> time,
>>>>>>> so,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd port them e.g. suite-by-suite once we will have a
>>>>> stable
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> featured
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment to run them and of course make test's code
>>>>> clear
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad/non-relevant ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * I like bottom-up approach.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With it we could make a better framework. I mean clear
>>>>>>> component
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lifecycle,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> component wiring mechanics, general methods to approach
>>>>> core
>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as exchange/communication
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to avoid code mess like we have in ExchangeFuture with
>>>> all
>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>> custom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> callbacks for each component, interfaces like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PartitionsExchangeAware, IgniteChangeGlobalStateSupport
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> start/stop/onKernalStart/onPluginStart/onActivate/onDisconnected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and so on in various unexpected places.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hope, we will be able to port most of the good code to
>>>> the
>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>> framework
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay, Pavel,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback! First of all, I wanted to
>>>> stress
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intend to rewrite everything from scratch (I never used
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> phrase).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are significant parts of code that would be moved with
>>>>>>> minimal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modifications. Second, I never said that we will get
>>>> rid
>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> old
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be
>>>>> moved
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is that for some parts of the code a clean
>>>>>> bottom-up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation will be cheaper in many ways. Let me
>>>> give
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concrete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I think no one can object that we need a cleanly
>>>>>> separated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> layer for Ignite. There is a very raw draft IEP for
>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> already.
>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, I think we also can agree that we need a
>>>>>>>> split-brain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resistant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol for caches. There is also an IEP
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the changes is a good fit for 2.x because they are
>>>>> likely
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking changes in the persistence layer,
>>>> configuration
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, these components are now tightly
>>>> coupled,
>>>>> so
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two changes can be implemented in parallel and
>>>>> then
>>>>>>>> merged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily. So what we will end up with is having to
>>>>> implement
>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially, fixing all existing tests twice, and
>>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throwing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away half of the work done because the other part of
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-implemented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Similar example goes with getting rid of
>>>>>>>> IgniteInternalFuture
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replacing it with CompletableFuture, and any other
>>>>> change
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> touches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asynchronous part of the code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Third, I do not see how this choice affects the UX of
>>>>>> Ignite.
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience must be fixed in the IEP regardless of the
>>>>>>>> development
>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the fact that we have gaps in this area in Ignite
>>>> 2.x
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>> confirms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavel, agree that a repo/branch is a technicality, I
>>>>> guess
>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reformulate,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my point is that we might agree to have a single
>>>>>> development
>>>>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with 'disassembled' end-to-end functionality for some
>>>>>> period
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed up development, and re-assemble the core features
>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submodules tested independently.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
>>>>> support,
>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not very specific. In the end, resources are
>>>>>> limited
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be able to drive both tracks simultaneously,
>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>>> after a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of features having been implemented for Ignite 3.0. If
>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> indeed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some major changes that we want to do in Ignite 2.x
>>>>> instead
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> putting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort into 3.0 - let's discuss them. I am just not
>>>> aware
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> any,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I am eager to move forward with Ignite 3.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
>>>> without
>>>>>>>>> breaking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with all
>>>>>> it’s
>>>>>>>>>> issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These changes will be covered by end-to-end tests and
>>>>>>> migrated
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0, so I see no issues here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, Anton & Nikolay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not have an estimate for this simply because the
>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community-driven and it depends on the number of people
>>>>>>> willing
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribute. With the current pace, I would hope to have
>>>>> an
>>>>>> RC
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be ready by the end of 2021. My gut feeling is that
>>>> by
>>>>>>>> moving
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incremental changes, we will not be able to implement
>>>>> even
>>>>>>> half
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wishlist by that time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt that releasing several major releases with
>>>>> breaking
>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make Ignite users happy either because each upgrade
>>>> will
>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money, so the fewer major versions we release, the
>>>>> better.
>>>>>>> Thus
>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>> wish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include all breaking changes in one release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll be now quiet for a while, let's see what other
>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Rewriting from scratch is never a good idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't want to follow the path of Netscape and lose
>>>>> all
>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the time we have a working 3.0 [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Not sure about new repo - seems like some pain and
>>>> no
>>>>>>> gain,
>>>>>>>>>>> what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem with a branch?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. We should keep existing integration tests when
>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have accumulated a lot of edge case knowledge over
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> years,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not a good idea to send all of that down the
>>>>> drain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, integration tests are slow, but they are the most
>>>>>>>> valuable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can move more stuff into nightly runs and
>>>>> have
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> fast
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic suite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, you are much more familiar with the Ignite
>>>> core
>>>>>>>> codebase
>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of us,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please explain in more detail which particular
>>>>>>>> feature,
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mandates this "start from scratch" approach?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it really not possible at all to follow a less
>>>>> radical
>>>>>>> way?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:25 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that «rewriting from scratch» approach has a
>>>>> high
>>>>>>>> risk
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features unusable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the time Ignite2 was started no-one wants to do
>>>> bad
>>>>> UX
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, it happen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can avoid it with the Ignite3 and
>>>> successors
>>>>>> if
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step by step without keeping backward compatibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With the step by step approach, we can focus on each
>>>>>>>> component
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separately.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement for
>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>> 2.x?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
>>>>>> support,
>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>> breaking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with
>>>> all
>>>>>> it’s
>>>>>>>>>> issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 14:09, Anton Vinogradov <
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have any estimates of how fast we'll be able
>>>> to
>>>>>> gain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production-ready
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI 3.0 in case of a "new repo" choice?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:01 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement for
>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>> 2.x?
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we commence working on Ignite 3.0, we should
>>>>> gradually
>>>>>>>> cease
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Ignite 2.x to mere bugfixes because such
>>>> parallel
>>>>>>>>>> development
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwhelming regardless of how we choose to
>>>> proceed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:38, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be clear:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest creating a new repository for
>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>> 3.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean branch, but a new repo looks nicer to me)
>>>> and
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TeamCity project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for new Team City project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for new branch for Ignite3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 for new repo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:35, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it will hurt our project more than help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Developing new features for 2 separate branches
>>>>> with
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APIs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and internal structure is overwhelming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should relax a bit requirements for
>>>>> Ignite3?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should move step by step and make
>>>> Ignite3
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration than Ignite4 with new transactions,
>>>>> etc?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:14, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to pitch a rather radical idea
>>>> regarding
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development which has occurred to me some time
>>>>> ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We already have several IEPs targeted to Ignite
>>>>> 3.0
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>> imply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to the codebase (the change in
>>>> replication
>>>>>>>>> protocol
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactions, change in binary format, updated
>>>>>>>>> metastorage,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planned significant changes in public APIs:
>>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements in cache APIs, SQL APIs,
>>>> transaction
>>>>>> mode
>>>>>>>>>> rework.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wishlist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of changes for Ignite 3.0 is huge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I was wondering whether it makes sense to
>>>> try
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase, or start with a new baseline and move
>>>>> old
>>>>>>>> pieces
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not require significant rework. Personally, I
>>>>> would
>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option for the following reasons:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We have a chance to shift the development
>>>>> paradigm
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce the practice of true unit-tests. In
>>>> the
>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>> baseline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning there will be no ability to run an
>>>>>>> end-to-end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be forced to write unit-tests. So far, such
>>>>>>>> practice
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement because of tight coupling between
>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to instantiate components without an instance of
>>>>>>>>>>> KernalContext.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, we should be able to thoroughly test
>>>>>> internal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primitives,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol (without actual
>>>>> communication),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metastorage contracts, persistence layer, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will significantly reduce the development
>>>>> cycle
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (right now the RunAll takes two hours of
>>>>>> astronomical
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> empty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TC;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the new approach developer will be able to
>>>> run
>>>>>> ALL
>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of minutes)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We can get rid of TC bot and enforce green TC
>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>> integrating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results with GitHub PRs (the same way Travis is
>>>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check). We should restrict PR merge without a TC
>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will still have to re-write all tests, but
>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> once.
>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modify the old codebase, we would need to modify
>>>>> all
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major change (public API change, configuration
>>>>>> change)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will have fewer conflicts when working
>>>>>> together.
>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot imagine how one would merge two changes
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>>>> rid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteFuture and changes in replication
>>>> protocol,
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Technically, I would suggest creating a new
>>>>>> repository
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a new clean branch, but a new repo
>>>> looks
>>>>>>> nicer
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> me)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3.0 TeamCity project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While it may seem quite radical, I do believe
>>>> that
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us more benefits than trying to make such major
>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. If needed, let's schedule a discord
>>>> chat
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Alexei Scherbakov
>

[Ivan Daschinsky]

>> b. Implement IEP-61 - Common Replication Infrastructure
I suppose, that this is the main cause of the current discussion.
I hardly believe that this activity can be done without at least creating a
completely new branch.

пт, 13 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:12, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:

> My suggestion:
>
> 1. Reduce Ignite3 scope to the following:
>         a. Delete all deprecated API and support of obsolete internal
> protocols.
>         b. Implement IEP-61 - Common Replication Infrastructure
>         c. Implement new Ignite management tool ignitectl as suggested
> during Ignite3 discussion.
>
> 2. Implement and release following improvements like transactions, Calcite
> based SQL, etc in the ongoing releases - Ignite 4, 5, 6
>
> My concern against separate Ignite 3 repo is the following:
>
> 1. We spread community to the two very separated part - Ignite3 developers
> and Ignite2 maintainers.  believe it’s bad for our community.
>         That can lead to the situation when we don’t fix critical or
> blocker issueds «because they will not exists in Ignite3»
>         That will lead to the solutions never reviewed or reviewed poorly.
>
> 2. It seems for me that current scope of Ignite3 is too big to be
> implemented in any reasonable time.
>
>
> > 13 нояб. 2020 г., в 10:57, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>
> написал(а):
> >
> > Hello, Valentin.
> >
> >> Nikolay, Maxim, are you OK with this route?
> >
> > -1 to have another repo for Ignite3 development.
> >
> >> 13 нояб. 2020 г., в 03:04, Valentin Kulichenko <
> [hidden email]> написал(а):
> >>
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> We already have multiple IEPs for Ignite 3.0, and as far as I know,
> there are contributors that would like to work on them (or probably already
> started). That said, we should make a decision as soon as possible.
> >>
> >> At this point, it doesn't seem that there are any strong objections to
> the technical side of things. So I would suggest the following:
> >>
> >> 1. Proceed with Alexey's approach to the development process, as it
> seems to be the best (in my opinion - the only) way to address all the
> technical concerns and issues expressed in the thread. We'll start by
> creating a new repo and a new TC project.
> >> 2. Start a separate discussion around transparency. If there are any
> changes we need to make to our contributor guidelines, I am happy to talk
> them through, but I don't think it's reasonable to delay feature
> development because of this. In the short term, I will make sure that
> everything that happens within the new repo is as open to the community as
> possible.
> >>
> >> Nikolay, Maxim, are you OK with this route?
> >>
> >> -Val
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 4:55 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Maxim,
> >>
> >> 2.x and 3.x will have to coexist for some time - I don't see how we can
> avoid this considering the set of proposed changes. That said, we
> effectively will need to have two "masters" - one for each major version.
> Master for 3.x can technically be a branch in the existing repo, but having
> a separate repo seems cleaner, simply because it will not be a "branch" in
> the traditional sense.
> >>
> >> Note that the new repo will still be under the Apache org, with the
> same set of committers, managed by the community, etc. All the development
> happening for 3.0 must follow the rules that we currently have (if
> anything, it's an opportunity to improve those rules).
> >>
> >> As I said during the call on Friday, I strongly believe that if there
> is a transparency issue, it will exist regardless of the approach we choose
> for 3.0. If community members develop without IEPs or public discussions,
> this will happen for both 2.x and 3.x unless we address this separately. I
> don't see how this is related to Alexey's suggestion, which targets
> *technical* issues with the product more than anything else. This a way to
> achieve better modularity, introduce better coverage with unit tests,
> reduce conflicts during development, etc.
> >>
> >> Coming back to transparency, let's identify the issues and fix them. It
> probably makes sense to have a separate discussion on this topic.
> >>
> >> -Val
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:05 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> Sergey,
> >>
> >>
> >> Your summary makes sense to me.
> >>
> >> However, how we come up from *Development transparency* to *create a
> >> separate public repository dedicated for 3.0*? For me *development
> >> transparency* is about making changes in the master branch. These
> >> changes will definitely be seen by all the Ignite developers.
> >>
> >> A dedicated public repository is technically public and visible for
> >> everyone, but it allows development without IEPs, without public
> >> discussion (since all the code changes are not related to the master
> >> branch) it also allows a large number of assumptions and deviations
> >> (like code-style violations). It also not about *development
> >> transparency* since developers which are working on 3.0 is only a
> >> subset of all Ignite developers which may continue working on 2.x. For
> >> me, this would be a huge step backwards.
> >>
> >> Ignite veterans should remember how long the branch stabilization took
> >> for the 2.x version with the PDS.
> >>
> >>
> >> I think each breaking change should be passed through the master branch.
> >>
> >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 22:18, Alexei Scherbakov
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Makes sense to me.
> >>>
> >>> вт, 10 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:47, Sergey Chugunov <
> [hidden email]>:
> >>>
> >>>> Igniters,
> >>>>
> >>>> I thought over Friday meeting ideas and concerns and summarized them
> in
> >>>> these three points:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>   1. *Components design unification approach.* New proposed components
> >>>>   will be developed by different contributors, but they need to be
> unified
> >>>>   and should integrate with each other easily. To ensure that I
> suggest
> >>>>   calling an architecture group that will create design guidelines
> for all
> >>>>   components and high-level overview of overall architecture. How
> code is
> >>>>   split into components, what are component boundaries, how component
> >>>>   lifecycle works and what are its interfaces - all these and other
> >>>> questions
> >>>>   should be covered.
> >>>>
> >>>>   2. *Scope management.* Apache 3.0 should be implemented within a
> >>>>   reasonable time, so we need some procedure to decide whether a
> >>>> particular
> >>>>   feature should be dropped from the scope of 3.0 and postponed to 3.1
> >>>>   release. To do so I suggest to range all features by two parameters:
> >>>>   criticality for 3.0 and amount of breaking changes. 3.0 scope should
> >>>>   include features of high criticality AND features with a big amount
> of
> >>>>   breaking changes. All other features can be made optional.
> >>>>
> >>>>   3. *Development transparency.* Development of all components should
> be
> >>>>   made as transparent for everyone as possible. Any contributor
> should be
> >>>>   able to look over any component at any stage of development. To
> achieve
> >>>>   this I suggest to create a separate public repository dedicated for
> 3.0
> >>>>   development. It will make the code available for everyone but when
> >>>>   development of 3.0 is done we won't loose any stars of our current
> >>>>   repository as we merge dev repo into main one and drop dev.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do these ideas make sense to you? Are there any concerns not covered
> by
> >>>> these suggestions?
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:36 PM Kseniya Romanova <
> [hidden email]
> >>>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Here are the slides from Alexey Goncharuk. Let's think this over and
> >>>>> continue on Monday:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> https://go.gridgain.com/rs/491-TWR-806/images/Ignite_3_Plans_and_development_process.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>> чт, 5 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:13, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Folks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Should we perform cleanup work before (r)evolutional changes?
> >>>>>> My huge proposal is to get rid of things which we don't need anyway
> >>>>>> - local caches,
> >>>>>> - strange tx modes,
> >>>>>> - code overcomplexity because of RollingUpgrade feature never
> attended
> >>>> at
> >>>>>> AI,
> >>>>>> - etc,
> >>>>>> before choosing the way.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:31 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ksenia, thanks for scheduling this on such short notice!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As for the original topic, I do support Alexey's idea. We're not
> >>>> going
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> rewrite anything from scratch, as most of the components are going
> to
> >>>>> be
> >>>>>>> moved as-is or with minimal modifications. However, the changes
> that
> >>>>> are
> >>>>>>> proposed imply serious rework of the core parts of the code, which
> >>>> are
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>>> properly decoupled from each other and from other parts. This makes
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>> incremental approach borderline impossible. Developing in a new
> repo,
> >>>>>>> however, addresses this concern. As a bonus, we can also refactor
> the
> >>>>>> code,
> >>>>>>> introduce better decoupling, get rid of kernel context, and develop
> >>>>> unit
> >>>>>>> tests (finally!).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Basically, this proposal only affects the *process*, not the set of
> >>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>> we had discussed before. Ignite 3.0 is our unique chance to make
> >>>> things
> >>>>>>> right.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:06 AM Kseniya Romanova <
> >>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Pavel, all the interesting points will be anyway published here in
> >>>>>>> English
> >>>>>>>> (as the principal "if it's not on devlist it doesn't happened" is
> >>>>> still
> >>>>>>>> relevant). This is just a quick call for a group of developers.
> >>>> Later
> >>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>> can do a separate presentation of idea and discussion in English
> as
> >>>>> we
> >>>>>>> did
> >>>>>>>> for the Ignite 3.0 draft of changes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]
> >>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Kseniya,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for scheduling this call.
> >>>>>>>>> Do you think we can switch to English if non-Russian speaking
> >>>>>> community
> >>>>>>>>> members decide to join?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:32 PM Kseniya Romanova <
> >>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Let's do this community discussion open. Here's the link on
> >>>> zoom
> >>>>>> call
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> Russian for Friday 6 PM:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/events/274360378/
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 12:49, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Time works for me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3 нояб. 2020 г., в 12:40, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am up for the call. I will try to explain my reasoning in
> >>>>>>> greater
> >>>>>>>>>>> detail
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and will be glad to hear the concerns. Will this Friday,
> >>>> Nov
> >>>>>> 6th,
> >>>>>>>>> work?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 10:09, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, should we have a call for this topic?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 18:53, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not intend to rewrite everything from scratch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be moved to
> >>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>> 3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, thank you for the explanation, this addresses all
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>> my
> >>>>>>>>>>> concerns.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:43 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Igniters.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * AFAIU, we need a new repo if we want to apply
> >>>> different
> >>>>>>>>>> restrictions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull requests,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise I see no difference for myself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E.g. make static analysis (do we have?), compile,
> >>>> styles,
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> javadoc
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checks mandatory.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that relaxed requirements here will lead to bad
> >>>>>>> product
> >>>>>>>>>>> quality.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Agree with Pavel, we should 'keep' integrations tests
> >>>>>>> somehow.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> During active development tests will be broken most of
> >>>>> time,
> >>>>>>> so,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd port them e.g. suite-by-suite once we will have a
> >>>>> stable
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> featured
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment to run them and of course make test's code
> >>>>> clear
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> avoid
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad/non-relevant ones.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * I like bottom-up approach.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With it we could make a better framework. I mean clear
> >>>>>>> component
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> lifecycle,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> component wiring mechanics, general methods to approach
> >>>>> core
> >>>>>>>>>>> components
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as exchange/communication
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to avoid code mess like we have in ExchangeFuture with
> >>>> all
> >>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>> custom
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> callbacks for each component, interfaces like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PartitionsExchangeAware, IgniteChangeGlobalStateSupport
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pack of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> start/stop/onKernalStart/onPluginStart/onActivate/onDisconnected
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and so on in various unexpected places.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hope, we will be able to port most of the good code to
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>> framework
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay, Pavel,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback! First of all, I wanted to
> >>>> stress
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intend to rewrite everything from scratch (I never used
> >>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>> phrase).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are significant parts of code that would be moved with
> >>>>>>> minimal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modifications. Second, I never said that we will get
> >>>> rid
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> old
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be
> >>>>> moved
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is that for some parts of the code a clean
> >>>>>> bottom-up
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation will be cheaper in many ways. Let me
> >>>> give
> >>>>>> you
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> few
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concrete
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I think no one can object that we need a cleanly
> >>>>>> separated
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> layer for Ignite. There is a very raw draft IEP for
> >>>> this
> >>>>>>>>> already.
> >>>>>>>>>> On
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, I think we also can agree that we need a
> >>>>>>>> split-brain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resistant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol for caches. There is also an IEP
> >>>>> for
> >>>>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the changes is a good fit for 2.x because they are
> >>>>> likely
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking changes in the persistence layer,
> >>>> configuration
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, these components are now tightly
> >>>> coupled,
> >>>>> so
> >>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two changes can be implemented in parallel and
> >>>>> then
> >>>>>>>> merged
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily. So what we will end up with is having to
> >>>>> implement
> >>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially, fixing all existing tests twice, and
> >>>>>>> essentially
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throwing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away half of the work done because the other part of
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>> change
> >>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-implemented
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Similar example goes with getting rid of
> >>>>>>>> IgniteInternalFuture
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replacing it with CompletableFuture, and any other
> >>>>> change
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> touches
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asynchronous part of the code.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Third, I do not see how this choice affects the UX of
> >>>>>> Ignite.
> >>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>> end
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience must be fixed in the IEP regardless of the
> >>>>>>>> development
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> process
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the fact that we have gaps in this area in Ignite
> >>>> 2.x
> >>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>>> confirms
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavel, agree that a repo/branch is a technicality, I
> >>>>> guess
> >>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reformulate,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my point is that we might agree to have a single
> >>>>>> development
> >>>>>>>>> master
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with 'disassembled' end-to-end functionality for some
> >>>>>> period
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed up development, and re-assemble the core features
> >>>>>> after
> >>>>>>>>>> having
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submodules tested independently.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> >>>>> support,
> >>>>>>>> etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not very specific. In the end, resources are
> >>>>>> limited
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be able to drive both tracks simultaneously,
> >>>>> especially
> >>>>>>>>> after a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of features having been implemented for Ignite 3.0. If
> >>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>> indeed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some major changes that we want to do in Ignite 2.x
> >>>>> instead
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>> putting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort into 3.0 - let's discuss them. I am just not
> >>>> aware
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> any,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I am eager to move forward with Ignite 3.0.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
> >>>> without
> >>>>>>>>> breaking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backward
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with all
> >>>>>> it’s
> >>>>>>>>>> issues.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These changes will be covered by end-to-end tests and
> >>>>>>> migrated
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0, so I see no issues here.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, Anton & Nikolay
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not have an estimate for this simply because the
> >>>>>>> activity
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community-driven and it depends on the number of people
> >>>>>>> willing
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribute. With the current pace, I would hope to have
> >>>>> an
> >>>>>> RC
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be ready by the end of 2021. My gut feeling is that
> >>>> by
> >>>>>>>> moving
> >>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incremental changes, we will not be able to implement
> >>>>> even
> >>>>>>> half
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wishlist by that time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt that releasing several major releases with
> >>>>> breaking
> >>>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make Ignite users happy either because each upgrade
> >>>> will
> >>>>>> cost
> >>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money, so the fewer major versions we release, the
> >>>>> better.
> >>>>>>> Thus
> >>>>>>>>> my
> >>>>>>>>>>> wish
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include all breaking changes in one release.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll be now quiet for a while, let's see what other
> >>>>>> community
> >>>>>>>>>> members
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Rewriting from scratch is never a good idea.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't want to follow the path of Netscape and lose
> >>>>> all
> >>>>>>> our
> >>>>>>>>>> users
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the time we have a working 3.0 [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Not sure about new repo - seems like some pain and
> >>>> no
> >>>>>>> gain,
> >>>>>>>>>>> what's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem with a branch?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. We should keep existing integration tests when
> >>>>>> possible.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have accumulated a lot of edge case knowledge over
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> years,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not a good idea to send all of that down the
> >>>>> drain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, integration tests are slow, but they are the most
> >>>>>>>> valuable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can move more stuff into nightly runs and
> >>>>> have
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>> fast
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic suite.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, you are much more familiar with the Ignite
> >>>> core
> >>>>>>>> codebase
> >>>>>>>>>>> than
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of us,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please explain in more detail which particular
> >>>>>>>> feature,
> >>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mandates this "start from scratch" approach?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it really not possible at all to follow a less
> >>>>> radical
> >>>>>>> way?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:25 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that «rewriting from scratch» approach has a
> >>>>> high
> >>>>>>>> risk
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features unusable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the time Ignite2 was started no-one wants to do
> >>>> bad
> >>>>> UX
> >>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>> bad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, it happen.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can avoid it with the Ignite3 and
> >>>> successors
> >>>>>> if
> >>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step by step without keeping backward compatibility
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With the step by step approach, we can focus on each
> >>>>>>>> component
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separately.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement for
> >>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>> 2.x?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> >>>>>> support,
> >>>>>>>> etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
> >>>>> without
> >>>>>>>>> breaking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backward
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with
> >>>> all
> >>>>>> it’s
> >>>>>>>>>> issues.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 14:09, Anton Vinogradov <
> >>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have any estimates of how fast we'll be able
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> gain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production-ready
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI 3.0 in case of a "new repo" choice?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:01 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement for
> >>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>> 2.x?
> >>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we commence working on Ignite 3.0, we should
> >>>>> gradually
> >>>>>>>> cease
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Ignite 2.x to mere bugfixes because such
> >>>> parallel
> >>>>>>>>>> development
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwhelming regardless of how we choose to
> >>>> proceed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:38, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be clear:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest creating a new repository for
> >>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>> 3.0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean branch, but a new repo looks nicer to me)
> >>>> and
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TeamCity project.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for new Team City project.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for new branch for Ignite3.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 for new repo.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:35, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it will hurt our project more than help.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Developing new features for 2 separate branches
> >>>>> with
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APIs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and internal structure is overwhelming
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should relax a bit requirements for
> >>>>> Ignite3?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should move step by step and make
> >>>> Ignite3
> >>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration than Ignite4 with new transactions,
> >>>>> etc?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:14, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to pitch a rather radical idea
> >>>> regarding
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development which has occurred to me some time
> >>>>> ago.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We already have several IEPs targeted to Ignite
> >>>>> 3.0
> >>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>>> imply
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to the codebase (the change in
> >>>> replication
> >>>>>>>>> protocol
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactions, change in binary format, updated
> >>>>>>>>> metastorage,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planned significant changes in public APIs:
> >>>>>>>> configuration
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements in cache APIs, SQL APIs,
> >>>> transaction
> >>>>>> mode
> >>>>>>>>>> rework.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wishlist
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of changes for Ignite 3.0 is huge.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I was wondering whether it makes sense to
> >>>> try
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> change
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase, or start with a new baseline and move
> >>>>> old
> >>>>>>>> pieces
> >>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not require significant rework. Personally, I
> >>>>> would
> >>>>>> go
> >>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option for the following reasons:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We have a chance to shift the development
> >>>>> paradigm
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce the practice of true unit-tests. In
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>> baseline
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning there will be no ability to run an
> >>>>>>> end-to-end
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be forced to write unit-tests. So far, such
> >>>>>>>> practice
> >>>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement because of tight coupling between
> >>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>> components
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inability
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to instantiate components without an instance of
> >>>>>>>>>>> KernalContext.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, we should be able to thoroughly test
> >>>>>> internal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primitives,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol (without actual
> >>>>> communication),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metastorage contracts, persistence layer, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will significantly reduce the development
> >>>>> cycle
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (right now the RunAll takes two hours of
> >>>>>> astronomical
> >>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> empty
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TC;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the new approach developer will be able to
> >>>> run
> >>>>>> ALL
> >>>>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of minutes)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We can get rid of TC bot and enforce green TC
> >>>> by
> >>>>>>>>>> integrating
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results with GitHub PRs (the same way Travis is
> >>>>>>>> currently
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrated
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check). We should restrict PR merge without a TC
> >>>>>> check
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will still have to re-write all tests, but
> >>>>> only
> >>>>>>>> once.
> >>>>>>>>>> If
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modify the old codebase, we would need to modify
> >>>>> all
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major change (public API change, configuration
> >>>>>> change)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will have fewer conflicts when working
> >>>>>> together.
> >>>>>>>> For
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot imagine how one would merge two changes
> >>>> of
> >>>>>>>> getting
> >>>>>>>>>> rid
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteFuture and changes in replication
> >>>> protocol,
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>> example
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Technically, I would suggest creating a new
> >>>>>> repository
> >>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a new clean branch, but a new repo
> >>>> looks
> >>>>>>> nicer
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> me)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3.0 TeamCity project.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While it may seem quite radical, I do believe
> >>>> that
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us more benefits than trying to make such major
> >>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. If needed, let's schedule a discord
> >>>> chat
> >>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>> before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Alexei Scherbakov
> >
>
>
>

--
Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy

[Maxim Muzafarov]

Val,


Why *creating a new repo* is the main point we faced with? Would it be
better to discuss the components design approach and scope management
first suggested by Sergey Chugunov? I doubt that new repo will solve
move us forward.

Currently, I'm -1 to create a new repo with the inputs above.

In addition to Nikolay's answer I see the following drawbacks of
creating new repo:
- we have very few positive examples of finalizing really huge
improvements to *production-ready* states the others remains
incomplete (MVCC, Calcite, Zookeeper, Tracing, Thread per Partition,
etc)
- AFAIK, the Native Persistence took a very long period of
stabilization even after it has been developed (we must take it into
account for developing new features like IEP-61)
- feature development for a long period of time (like 3.0) without any
releases will lead to all these changes became obsolete at the moment
of release (AFAIK the 2.8 which released a year ago still has no big
deployments)
- human resources -- some of the Igniters may lose their interest for
3.0 during development, some of them may switch to different projects,
etc.
- do we all estimating the scope of 3.0 correct? The 2.8 release took 1.5 years.

Have I missed something?


I suggest the following plan:

- initiate 3.0 development in the master branch (after 2.10 release
change version to 3.0-SNAPSHOT instead of 2.11-SNAPSHOT)
- cleanup and collapse all the current APIs (see To Be Removed List
For Discussion on Apache Ignite 3.0 Wishlist)
- reduce the scope for 3.0 even more. I suggest focusing on two
things: Calcite + Schema-first approach
- create feature branches for proposed IEPs (for 3.0 only)
- create the release road map (allocate e.g. IEP-61 to 4.0 etc.)

On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 14:03, Ivan Daschinsky <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> >> b. Implement IEP-61 - Common Replication Infrastructure
> I suppose, that this is the main cause of the current discussion.
> I hardly believe that this activity can be done without at least creating a
> completely new branch.
>
> пт, 13 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:12, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > My suggestion:
> >
> > 1. Reduce Ignite3 scope to the following:
> >         a. Delete all deprecated API and support of obsolete internal
> > protocols.
> >         b. Implement IEP-61 - Common Replication Infrastructure
> >         c. Implement new Ignite management tool ignitectl as suggested
> > during Ignite3 discussion.
> >
> > 2. Implement and release following improvements like transactions, Calcite
> > based SQL, etc in the ongoing releases - Ignite 4, 5, 6
> >
> > My concern against separate Ignite 3 repo is the following:
> >
> > 1. We spread community to the two very separated part - Ignite3 developers
> > and Ignite2 maintainers.  believe it’s bad for our community.
> >         That can lead to the situation when we don’t fix critical or
> > blocker issueds «because they will not exists in Ignite3»
> >         That will lead to the solutions never reviewed or reviewed poorly.
> >
> > 2. It seems for me that current scope of Ignite3 is too big to be
> > implemented in any reasonable time.
> >
> >
> > > 13 нояб. 2020 г., в 10:57, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>
> > написал(а):
> > >
> > > Hello, Valentin.
> > >
> > >> Nikolay, Maxim, are you OK with this route?
> > >
> > > -1 to have another repo for Ignite3 development.
> > >
> > >> 13 нояб. 2020 г., в 03:04, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > [hidden email]> написал(а):
> > >>
> > >> Folks,
> > >>
> > >> We already have multiple IEPs for Ignite 3.0, and as far as I know,
> > there are contributors that would like to work on them (or probably already
> > started). That said, we should make a decision as soon as possible.
> > >>
> > >> At this point, it doesn't seem that there are any strong objections to
> > the technical side of things. So I would suggest the following:
> > >>
> > >> 1. Proceed with Alexey's approach to the development process, as it
> > seems to be the best (in my opinion - the only) way to address all the
> > technical concerns and issues expressed in the thread. We'll start by
> > creating a new repo and a new TC project.
> > >> 2. Start a separate discussion around transparency. If there are any
> > changes we need to make to our contributor guidelines, I am happy to talk
> > them through, but I don't think it's reasonable to delay feature
> > development because of this. In the short term, I will make sure that
> > everything that happens within the new repo is as open to the community as
> > possible.
> > >>
> > >> Nikolay, Maxim, are you OK with this route?
> > >>
> > >> -Val
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 4:55 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >> Maxim,
> > >>
> > >> 2.x and 3.x will have to coexist for some time - I don't see how we can
> > avoid this considering the set of proposed changes. That said, we
> > effectively will need to have two "masters" - one for each major version.
> > Master for 3.x can technically be a branch in the existing repo, but having
> > a separate repo seems cleaner, simply because it will not be a "branch" in
> > the traditional sense.
> > >>
> > >> Note that the new repo will still be under the Apache org, with the
> > same set of committers, managed by the community, etc. All the development
> > happening for 3.0 must follow the rules that we currently have (if
> > anything, it's an opportunity to improve those rules).
> > >>
> > >> As I said during the call on Friday, I strongly believe that if there
> > is a transparency issue, it will exist regardless of the approach we choose
> > for 3.0. If community members develop without IEPs or public discussions,
> > this will happen for both 2.x and 3.x unless we address this separately. I
> > don't see how this is related to Alexey's suggestion, which targets
> > *technical* issues with the product more than anything else. This a way to
> > achieve better modularity, introduce better coverage with unit tests,
> > reduce conflicts during development, etc.
> > >>
> > >> Coming back to transparency, let's identify the issues and fix them. It
> > probably makes sense to have a separate discussion on this topic.
> > >>
> > >> -Val
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:05 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >> Sergey,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Your summary makes sense to me.
> > >>
> > >> However, how we come up from *Development transparency* to *create a
> > >> separate public repository dedicated for 3.0*? For me *development
> > >> transparency* is about making changes in the master branch. These
> > >> changes will definitely be seen by all the Ignite developers.
> > >>
> > >> A dedicated public repository is technically public and visible for
> > >> everyone, but it allows development without IEPs, without public
> > >> discussion (since all the code changes are not related to the master
> > >> branch) it also allows a large number of assumptions and deviations
> > >> (like code-style violations). It also not about *development
> > >> transparency* since developers which are working on 3.0 is only a
> > >> subset of all Ignite developers which may continue working on 2.x. For
> > >> me, this would be a huge step backwards.
> > >>
> > >> Ignite veterans should remember how long the branch stabilization took
> > >> for the 2.x version with the PDS.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I think each breaking change should be passed through the master branch.
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 22:18, Alexei Scherbakov
> > >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Makes sense to me.
> > >>>
> > >>> вт, 10 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:47, Sergey Chugunov <
> > [hidden email]>:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Igniters,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I thought over Friday meeting ideas and concerns and summarized them
> > in
> > >>>> these three points:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>   1. *Components design unification approach.* New proposed components
> > >>>>   will be developed by different contributors, but they need to be
> > unified
> > >>>>   and should integrate with each other easily. To ensure that I
> > suggest
> > >>>>   calling an architecture group that will create design guidelines
> > for all
> > >>>>   components and high-level overview of overall architecture. How
> > code is
> > >>>>   split into components, what are component boundaries, how component
> > >>>>   lifecycle works and what are its interfaces - all these and other
> > >>>> questions
> > >>>>   should be covered.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>   2. *Scope management.* Apache 3.0 should be implemented within a
> > >>>>   reasonable time, so we need some procedure to decide whether a
> > >>>> particular
> > >>>>   feature should be dropped from the scope of 3.0 and postponed to 3.1
> > >>>>   release. To do so I suggest to range all features by two parameters:
> > >>>>   criticality for 3.0 and amount of breaking changes. 3.0 scope should
> > >>>>   include features of high criticality AND features with a big amount
> > of
> > >>>>   breaking changes. All other features can be made optional.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>   3. *Development transparency.* Development of all components should
> > be
> > >>>>   made as transparent for everyone as possible. Any contributor
> > should be
> > >>>>   able to look over any component at any stage of development. To
> > achieve
> > >>>>   this I suggest to create a separate public repository dedicated for
> > 3.0
> > >>>>   development. It will make the code available for everyone but when
> > >>>>   development of 3.0 is done we won't loose any stars of our current
> > >>>>   repository as we merge dev repo into main one and drop dev.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Do these ideas make sense to you? Are there any concerns not covered
> > by
> > >>>> these suggestions?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:36 PM Kseniya Romanova <
> > [hidden email]
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Here are the slides from Alexey Goncharuk. Let's think this over and
> > >>>>> continue on Monday:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > https://go.gridgain.com/rs/491-TWR-806/images/Ignite_3_Plans_and_development_process.pdf
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> чт, 5 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:13, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Folks,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Should we perform cleanup work before (r)evolutional changes?
> > >>>>>> My huge proposal is to get rid of things which we don't need anyway
> > >>>>>> - local caches,
> > >>>>>> - strange tx modes,
> > >>>>>> - code overcomplexity because of RollingUpgrade feature never
> > attended
> > >>>> at
> > >>>>>> AI,
> > >>>>>> - etc,
> > >>>>>> before choosing the way.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:31 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Ksenia, thanks for scheduling this on such short notice!
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> As for the original topic, I do support Alexey's idea. We're not
> > >>>> going
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>> rewrite anything from scratch, as most of the components are going
> > to
> > >>>>> be
> > >>>>>>> moved as-is or with minimal modifications. However, the changes
> > that
> > >>>>> are
> > >>>>>>> proposed imply serious rework of the core parts of the code, which
> > >>>> are
> > >>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>> properly decoupled from each other and from other parts. This makes
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>> incremental approach borderline impossible. Developing in a new
> > repo,
> > >>>>>>> however, addresses this concern. As a bonus, we can also refactor
> > the
> > >>>>>> code,
> > >>>>>>> introduce better decoupling, get rid of kernel context, and develop
> > >>>>> unit
> > >>>>>>> tests (finally!).
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Basically, this proposal only affects the *process*, not the set of
> > >>>>>> changes
> > >>>>>>> we had discussed before. Ignite 3.0 is our unique chance to make
> > >>>> things
> > >>>>>>> right.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> -Val
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:06 AM Kseniya Romanova <
> > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Pavel, all the interesting points will be anyway published here in
> > >>>>>>> English
> > >>>>>>>> (as the principal "if it's not on devlist it doesn't happened" is
> > >>>>> still
> > >>>>>>>> relevant). This is just a quick call for a group of developers.
> > >>>> Later
> > >>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>> can do a separate presentation of idea and discussion in English
> > as
> > >>>>> we
> > >>>>>>> did
> > >>>>>>>> for the Ignite 3.0 draft of changes.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]
> > >>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Kseniya,
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for scheduling this call.
> > >>>>>>>>> Do you think we can switch to English if non-Russian speaking
> > >>>>>> community
> > >>>>>>>>> members decide to join?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:32 PM Kseniya Romanova <
> > >>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Let's do this community discussion open. Here's the link on
> > >>>> zoom
> > >>>>>> call
> > >>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>> Russian for Friday 6 PM:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/events/274360378/
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 12:49, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Time works for me.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 3 нояб. 2020 г., в 12:40, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am up for the call. I will try to explain my reasoning in
> > >>>>>>> greater
> > >>>>>>>>>>> detail
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> and will be glad to hear the concerns. Will this Friday,
> > >>>> Nov
> > >>>>>> 6th,
> > >>>>>>>>> work?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 10:09, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, should we have a call for this topic?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 18:53, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not intend to rewrite everything from scratch
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be moved to
> > >>>>> Ignite
> > >>>>>> 3
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, thank you for the explanation, this addresses all
> > >>>>> of
> > >>>>>> my
> > >>>>>>>>>>> concerns.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:43 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Igniters.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * AFAIU, we need a new repo if we want to apply
> > >>>> different
> > >>>>>>>>>> restrictions
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull requests,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise I see no difference for myself.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E.g. make static analysis (do we have?), compile,
> > >>>> styles,
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> javadoc
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checks mandatory.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that relaxed requirements here will lead to bad
> > >>>>>>> product
> > >>>>>>>>>>> quality.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Agree with Pavel, we should 'keep' integrations tests
> > >>>>>>> somehow.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> During active development tests will be broken most of
> > >>>>> time,
> > >>>>>>> so,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd port them e.g. suite-by-suite once we will have a
> > >>>>> stable
> > >>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> featured
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment to run them and of course make test's code
> > >>>>> clear
> > >>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> avoid
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad/non-relevant ones.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * I like bottom-up approach.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With it we could make a better framework. I mean clear
> > >>>>>>> component
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lifecycle,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> component wiring mechanics, general methods to approach
> > >>>>> core
> > >>>>>>>>>>> components
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as exchange/communication
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to avoid code mess like we have in ExchangeFuture with
> > >>>> all
> > >>>>>>> these
> > >>>>>>>>>>> custom
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> callbacks for each component, interfaces like
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PartitionsExchangeAware, IgniteChangeGlobalStateSupport
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pack of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> start/stop/onKernalStart/onPluginStart/onActivate/onDisconnected
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and so on in various unexpected places.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hope, we will be able to port most of the good code to
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>>> framework
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay, Pavel,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback! First of all, I wanted to
> > >>>> stress
> > >>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>>> do
> > >>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intend to rewrite everything from scratch (I never used
> > >>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>> phrase).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are significant parts of code that would be moved with
> > >>>>>>> minimal
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modifications. Second, I never said that we will get
> > >>>> rid
> > >>>>> of
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> old
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be
> > >>>>> moved
> > >>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is that for some parts of the code a clean
> > >>>>>> bottom-up
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation will be cheaper in many ways. Let me
> > >>>> give
> > >>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>> few
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concrete
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I think no one can object that we need a cleanly
> > >>>>>> separated
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistence
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> layer for Ignite. There is a very raw draft IEP for
> > >>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>> already.
> > >>>>>>>>>> On
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, I think we also can agree that we need a
> > >>>>>>>> split-brain
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resistant
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol for caches. There is also an IEP
> > >>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>> this.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the changes is a good fit for 2.x because they are
> > >>>>> likely
> > >>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking changes in the persistence layer,
> > >>>> configuration
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, these components are now tightly
> > >>>> coupled,
> > >>>>> so
> > >>>>>>>> there
> > >>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two changes can be implemented in parallel and
> > >>>>> then
> > >>>>>>>> merged
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily. So what we will end up with is having to
> > >>>>> implement
> > >>>>>>>> these
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially, fixing all existing tests twice, and
> > >>>>>>> essentially
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throwing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away half of the work done because the other part of
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> change
> > >>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-implemented
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Similar example goes with getting rid of
> > >>>>>>>> IgniteInternalFuture
> > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replacing it with CompletableFuture, and any other
> > >>>>> change
> > >>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> touches
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asynchronous part of the code.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Third, I do not see how this choice affects the UX of
> > >>>>>> Ignite.
> > >>>>>>>> The
> > >>>>>>>>>> end
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience must be fixed in the IEP regardless of the
> > >>>>>>>> development
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> process
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the fact that we have gaps in this area in Ignite
> > >>>> 2.x
> > >>>>>>> just
> > >>>>>>>>>>> confirms
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavel, agree that a repo/branch is a technicality, I
> > >>>>> guess
> > >>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reformulate,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my point is that we might agree to have a single
> > >>>>>> development
> > >>>>>>>>> master
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with 'disassembled' end-to-end functionality for some
> > >>>>>> period
> > >>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>> time
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed up development, and re-assemble the core features
> > >>>>>> after
> > >>>>>>>>>> having
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submodules tested independently.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> > >>>>> support,
> > >>>>>>>> etc.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not very specific. In the end, resources are
> > >>>>>> limited
> > >>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be able to drive both tracks simultaneously,
> > >>>>> especially
> > >>>>>>>>> after a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of features having been implemented for Ignite 3.0. If
> > >>>>>> there
> > >>>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>>>>> indeed
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some major changes that we want to do in Ignite 2.x
> > >>>>> instead
> > >>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> putting
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort into 3.0 - let's discuss them. I am just not
> > >>>> aware
> > >>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>> any,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I am eager to move forward with Ignite 3.0.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
> > >>>> without
> > >>>>>>>>> breaking
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backward
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with all
> > >>>>>> it’s
> > >>>>>>>>>> issues.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These changes will be covered by end-to-end tests and
> > >>>>>>> migrated
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0, so I see no issues here.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, Anton & Nikolay
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not have an estimate for this simply because the
> > >>>>>>> activity
> > >>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community-driven and it depends on the number of people
> > >>>>>>> willing
> > >>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribute. With the current pace, I would hope to have
> > >>>>> an
> > >>>>>> RC
> > >>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be ready by the end of 2021. My gut feeling is that
> > >>>> by
> > >>>>>>>> moving
> > >>>>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incremental changes, we will not be able to implement
> > >>>>> even
> > >>>>>>> half
> > >>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wishlist by that time.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt that releasing several major releases with
> > >>>>> breaking
> > >>>>>>>>> changes
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make Ignite users happy either because each upgrade
> > >>>> will
> > >>>>>> cost
> > >>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money, so the fewer major versions we release, the
> > >>>>> better.
> > >>>>>>> Thus
> > >>>>>>>>> my
> > >>>>>>>>>>> wish
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include all breaking changes in one release.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll be now quiet for a while, let's see what other
> > >>>>>> community
> > >>>>>>>>>> members
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Rewriting from scratch is never a good idea.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't want to follow the path of Netscape and lose
> > >>>>> all
> > >>>>>>> our
> > >>>>>>>>>> users
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the time we have a working 3.0 [1]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Not sure about new repo - seems like some pain and
> > >>>> no
> > >>>>>>> gain,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> what's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem with a branch?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. We should keep existing integration tests when
> > >>>>>> possible.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have accumulated a lot of edge case knowledge over
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> years,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not a good idea to send all of that down the
> > >>>>> drain.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, integration tests are slow, but they are the most
> > >>>>>>>> valuable.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can move more stuff into nightly runs and
> > >>>>> have
> > >>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>> fast
> > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic suite.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, you are much more familiar with the Ignite
> > >>>> core
> > >>>>>>>> codebase
> > >>>>>>>>>>> than
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of us,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please explain in more detail which particular
> > >>>>>>>> feature,
> > >>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mandates this "start from scratch" approach?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it really not possible at all to follow a less
> > >>>>> radical
> > >>>>>>> way?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:25 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that «rewriting from scratch» approach has a
> > >>>>> high
> > >>>>>>>> risk
> > >>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features unusable.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the time Ignite2 was started no-one wants to do
> > >>>> bad
> > >>>>> UX
> > >>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>> bad
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, it happen.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can avoid it with the Ignite3 and
> > >>>> successors
> > >>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step by step without keeping backward compatibility
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With the step by step approach, we can focus on each
> > >>>>>>>> component
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separately.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement for
> > >>>>>> Ignite
> > >>>>>>>> 2.x?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> > >>>>>> support,
> > >>>>>>>> etc.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
> > >>>>> without
> > >>>>>>>>> breaking
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backward
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with
> > >>>> all
> > >>>>>> it’s
> > >>>>>>>>>> issues.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 14:09, Anton Vinogradov <
> > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have any estimates of how fast we'll be able
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>> gain
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production-ready
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI 3.0 in case of a "new repo" choice?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:01 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement for
> > >>>>>> Ignite
> > >>>>>>>>> 2.x?
> > >>>>>>>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we commence working on Ignite 3.0, we should
> > >>>>> gradually
> > >>>>>>>> cease
> > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Ignite 2.x to mere bugfixes because such
> > >>>> parallel
> > >>>>>>>>>> development
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwhelming regardless of how we choose to
> > >>>> proceed.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:38, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be clear:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest creating a new repository for
> > >>>>> Ignite
> > >>>>>>> 3.0
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean branch, but a new repo looks nicer to me)
> > >>>> and
> > >>>>> a
> > >>>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TeamCity project.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for new Team City project.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for new branch for Ignite3.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 for new repo.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:35, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it will hurt our project more than help.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Developing new features for 2 separate branches
> > >>>>> with
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APIs
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and internal structure is overwhelming
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should relax a bit requirements for
> > >>>>> Ignite3?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should move step by step and make
> > >>>> Ignite3
> > >>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration than Ignite4 with new transactions,
> > >>>>> etc?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:14, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to pitch a rather radical idea
> > >>>> regarding
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development which has occurred to me some time
> > >>>>> ago.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We already have several IEPs targeted to Ignite
> > >>>>> 3.0
> > >>>>>>>> which
> > >>>>>>>>>>> imply
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to the codebase (the change in
> > >>>> replication
> > >>>>>>>>> protocol
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactions, change in binary format, updated
> > >>>>>>>>> metastorage,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planned significant changes in public APIs:
> > >>>>>>>> configuration
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements in cache APIs, SQL APIs,
> > >>>> transaction
> > >>>>>> mode
> > >>>>>>>>>> rework.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wishlist
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of changes for Ignite 3.0 is huge.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I was wondering whether it makes sense to
> > >>>> try
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>> change
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase, or start with a new baseline and move
> > >>>>> old
> > >>>>>>>> pieces
> > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not require significant rework. Personally, I
> > >>>>> would
> > >>>>>> go
> > >>>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option for the following reasons:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We have a chance to shift the development
> > >>>>> paradigm
> > >>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce the practice of true unit-tests. In
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>> baseline
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning there will be no ability to run an
> > >>>>>>> end-to-end
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be forced to write unit-tests. So far, such
> > >>>>>>>> practice
> > >>>>>>>>>> was
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement because of tight coupling between
> > >>>> Ignite
> > >>>>>>>>>> components
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inability
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to instantiate components without an instance of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> KernalContext.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, we should be able to thoroughly test
> > >>>>>> internal
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primitives,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol (without actual
> > >>>>> communication),
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metastorage contracts, persistence layer, etc.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will significantly reduce the development
> > >>>>> cycle
> > >>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (right now the RunAll takes two hours of
> > >>>>>> astronomical
> > >>>>>>>> time
> > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> empty
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TC;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the new approach developer will be able to
> > >>>> run
> > >>>>>> ALL
> > >>>>>>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locally
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of minutes)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We can get rid of TC bot and enforce green TC
> > >>>> by
> > >>>>>>>>>> integrating
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TC
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results with GitHub PRs (the same way Travis is
> > >>>>>>>> currently
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrated
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to PR
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check). We should restrict PR merge without a TC
> > >>>>>> check
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will still have to re-write all tests, but
> > >>>>> only
> > >>>>>>>> once.
> > >>>>>>>>>> If
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modify the old codebase, we would need to modify
> > >>>>> all
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>> tests
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major change (public API change, configuration
> > >>>>>> change)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will have fewer conflicts when working
> > >>>>>> together.
> > >>>>>>>> For
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot imagine how one would merge two changes
> > >>>> of
> > >>>>>>>> getting
> > >>>>>>>>>> rid
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteFuture and changes in replication
> > >>>> protocol,
> > >>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>> example
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Technically, I would suggest creating a new
> > >>>>>> repository
> > >>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a new clean branch, but a new repo
> > >>>> looks
> > >>>>>>> nicer
> > >>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> me)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3.0 TeamCity project.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While it may seem quite radical, I do believe
> > >>>> that
> > >>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us more benefits than trying to make such major
> > >>>>>>> changes
> > >>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. If needed, let's schedule a discord
> > >>>> chat
> > >>>>>>> like
> > >>>>>>>>>> before
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Best regards,
> > >>> Alexei Scherbakov
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy

[Alexey Zinoviev]

I'm -1 for creating a new repo.
Also I support Maxim's plan for 3.0

пт, 13 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:50, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:

> Val,
>
>
> Why *creating a new repo* is the main point we faced with? Would it be
> better to discuss the components design approach and scope management
> first suggested by Sergey Chugunov? I doubt that new repo will solve
> move us forward.
>
> Currently, I'm -1 to create a new repo with the inputs above.
>
> In addition to Nikolay's answer I see the following drawbacks of
> creating new repo:
> - we have very few positive examples of finalizing really huge
> improvements to *production-ready* states the others remains
> incomplete (MVCC, Calcite, Zookeeper, Tracing, Thread per Partition,
> etc)
> - AFAIK, the Native Persistence took a very long period of
> stabilization even after it has been developed (we must take it into
> account for developing new features like IEP-61)
> - feature development for a long period of time (like 3.0) without any
> releases will lead to all these changes became obsolete at the moment
> of release (AFAIK the 2.8 which released a year ago still has no big
> deployments)
> - human resources -- some of the Igniters may lose their interest for
> 3.0 during development, some of them may switch to different projects,
> etc.
> - do we all estimating the scope of 3.0 correct? The 2.8 release took 1.5
> years.
>
> Have I missed something?
>
>
> I suggest the following plan:
>
> - initiate 3.0 development in the master branch (after 2.10 release
> change version to 3.0-SNAPSHOT instead of 2.11-SNAPSHOT)
> - cleanup and collapse all the current APIs (see To Be Removed List
> For Discussion on Apache Ignite 3.0 Wishlist)
> - reduce the scope for 3.0 even more. I suggest focusing on two
> things: Calcite + Schema-first approach
> - create feature branches for proposed IEPs (for 3.0 only)
> - create the release road map (allocate e.g. IEP-61 to 4.0 etc.)
>
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 14:03, Ivan Daschinsky <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > >> b. Implement IEP-61 - Common Replication Infrastructure
> > I suppose, that this is the main cause of the current discussion.
> > I hardly believe that this activity can be done without at least
> creating a
> > completely new branch.
> >
> > пт, 13 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:12, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > My suggestion:
> > >
> > > 1. Reduce Ignite3 scope to the following:
> > >         a. Delete all deprecated API and support of obsolete internal
> > > protocols.
> > >         b. Implement IEP-61 - Common Replication Infrastructure
> > >         c. Implement new Ignite management tool ignitectl as suggested
> > > during Ignite3 discussion.
> > >
> > > 2. Implement and release following improvements like transactions,
> Calcite
> > > based SQL, etc in the ongoing releases - Ignite 4, 5, 6
> > >
> > > My concern against separate Ignite 3 repo is the following:
> > >
> > > 1. We spread community to the two very separated part - Ignite3
> developers
> > > and Ignite2 maintainers.  believe it’s bad for our community.
> > >         That can lead to the situation when we don’t fix critical or
> > > blocker issueds «because they will not exists in Ignite3»
> > >         That will lead to the solutions never reviewed or reviewed
> poorly.
> > >
> > > 2. It seems for me that current scope of Ignite3 is too big to be
> > > implemented in any reasonable time.
> > >
> > >
> > > > 13 нояб. 2020 г., в 10:57, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>
> > > написал(а):
> > > >
> > > > Hello, Valentin.
> > > >
> > > >> Nikolay, Maxim, are you OK with this route?
> > > >
> > > > -1 to have another repo for Ignite3 development.
> > > >
> > > >> 13 нояб. 2020 г., в 03:04, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > [hidden email]> написал(а):
> > > >>
> > > >> Folks,
> > > >>
> > > >> We already have multiple IEPs for Ignite 3.0, and as far as I know,
> > > there are contributors that would like to work on them (or probably
> already
> > > started). That said, we should make a decision as soon as possible.
> > > >>
> > > >> At this point, it doesn't seem that there are any strong objections
> to
> > > the technical side of things. So I would suggest the following:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. Proceed with Alexey's approach to the development process, as it
> > > seems to be the best (in my opinion - the only) way to address all the
> > > technical concerns and issues expressed in the thread. We'll start by
> > > creating a new repo and a new TC project.
> > > >> 2. Start a separate discussion around transparency. If there are any
> > > changes we need to make to our contributor guidelines, I am happy to
> talk
> > > them through, but I don't think it's reasonable to delay feature
> > > development because of this. In the short term, I will make sure that
> > > everything that happens within the new repo is as open to the
> community as
> > > possible.
> > > >>
> > > >> Nikolay, Maxim, are you OK with this route?
> > > >>
> > > >> -Val
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 4:55 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >> Maxim,
> > > >>
> > > >> 2.x and 3.x will have to coexist for some time - I don't see how we
> can
> > > avoid this considering the set of proposed changes. That said, we
> > > effectively will need to have two "masters" - one for each major
> version.
> > > Master for 3.x can technically be a branch in the existing repo, but
> having
> > > a separate repo seems cleaner, simply because it will not be a
> "branch" in
> > > the traditional sense.
> > > >>
> > > >> Note that the new repo will still be under the Apache org, with the
> > > same set of committers, managed by the community, etc. All the
> development
> > > happening for 3.0 must follow the rules that we currently have (if
> > > anything, it's an opportunity to improve those rules).
> > > >>
> > > >> As I said during the call on Friday, I strongly believe that if
> there
> > > is a transparency issue, it will exist regardless of the approach we
> choose
> > > for 3.0. If community members develop without IEPs or public
> discussions,
> > > this will happen for both 2.x and 3.x unless we address this
> separately. I
> > > don't see how this is related to Alexey's suggestion, which targets
> > > *technical* issues with the product more than anything else. This a
> way to
> > > achieve better modularity, introduce better coverage with unit tests,
> > > reduce conflicts during development, etc.
> > > >>
> > > >> Coming back to transparency, let's identify the issues and fix
> them. It
> > > probably makes sense to have a separate discussion on this topic.
> > > >>
> > > >> -Val
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:05 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> Sergey,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Your summary makes sense to me.
> > > >>
> > > >> However, how we come up from *Development transparency* to *create a
> > > >> separate public repository dedicated for 3.0*? For me *development
> > > >> transparency* is about making changes in the master branch. These
> > > >> changes will definitely be seen by all the Ignite developers.
> > > >>
> > > >> A dedicated public repository is technically public and visible for
> > > >> everyone, but it allows development without IEPs, without public
> > > >> discussion (since all the code changes are not related to the master
> > > >> branch) it also allows a large number of assumptions and deviations
> > > >> (like code-style violations). It also not about *development
> > > >> transparency* since developers which are working on 3.0 is only a
> > > >> subset of all Ignite developers which may continue working on 2.x.
> For
> > > >> me, this would be a huge step backwards.
> > > >>
> > > >> Ignite veterans should remember how long the branch stabilization
> took
> > > >> for the 2.x version with the PDS.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I think each breaking change should be passed through the master
> branch.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 22:18, Alexei Scherbakov
> > > >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Makes sense to me.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> вт, 10 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:47, Sergey Chugunov <
> > > [hidden email]>:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Igniters,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I thought over Friday meeting ideas and concerns and summarized
> them
> > > in
> > > >>>> these three points:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>   1. *Components design unification approach.* New proposed
> components
> > > >>>>   will be developed by different contributors, but they need to be
> > > unified
> > > >>>>   and should integrate with each other easily. To ensure that I
> > > suggest
> > > >>>>   calling an architecture group that will create design guidelines
> > > for all
> > > >>>>   components and high-level overview of overall architecture. How
> > > code is
> > > >>>>   split into components, what are component boundaries, how
> component
> > > >>>>   lifecycle works and what are its interfaces - all these and
> other
> > > >>>> questions
> > > >>>>   should be covered.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>   2. *Scope management.* Apache 3.0 should be implemented within a
> > > >>>>   reasonable time, so we need some procedure to decide whether a
> > > >>>> particular
> > > >>>>   feature should be dropped from the scope of 3.0 and postponed
> to 3.1
> > > >>>>   release. To do so I suggest to range all features by two
> parameters:
> > > >>>>   criticality for 3.0 and amount of breaking changes. 3.0 scope
> should
> > > >>>>   include features of high criticality AND features with a big
> amount
> > > of
> > > >>>>   breaking changes. All other features can be made optional.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>   3. *Development transparency.* Development of all components
> should
> > > be
> > > >>>>   made as transparent for everyone as possible. Any contributor
> > > should be
> > > >>>>   able to look over any component at any stage of development. To
> > > achieve
> > > >>>>   this I suggest to create a separate public repository dedicated
> for
> > > 3.0
> > > >>>>   development. It will make the code available for everyone but
> when
> > > >>>>   development of 3.0 is done we won't loose any stars of our
> current
> > > >>>>   repository as we merge dev repo into main one and drop dev.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Do these ideas make sense to you? Are there any concerns not
> covered
> > > by
> > > >>>> these suggestions?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:36 PM Kseniya Romanova <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Here are the slides from Alexey Goncharuk. Let's think this over
> and
> > > >>>>> continue on Monday:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > >
> https://go.gridgain.com/rs/491-TWR-806/images/Ignite_3_Plans_and_development_process.pdf
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> чт, 5 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:13, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Folks,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Should we perform cleanup work before (r)evolutional changes?
> > > >>>>>> My huge proposal is to get rid of things which we don't need
> anyway
> > > >>>>>> - local caches,
> > > >>>>>> - strange tx modes,
> > > >>>>>> - code overcomplexity because of RollingUpgrade feature never
> > > attended
> > > >>>> at
> > > >>>>>> AI,
> > > >>>>>> - etc,
> > > >>>>>> before choosing the way.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:31 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > >>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Ksenia, thanks for scheduling this on such short notice!
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> As for the original topic, I do support Alexey's idea. We're
> not
> > > >>>> going
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>> rewrite anything from scratch, as most of the components are
> going
> > > to
> > > >>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>> moved as-is or with minimal modifications. However, the changes
> > > that
> > > >>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>> proposed imply serious rework of the core parts of the code,
> which
> > > >>>> are
> > > >>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>> properly decoupled from each other and from other parts. This
> makes
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>>> incremental approach borderline impossible. Developing in a new
> > > repo,
> > > >>>>>>> however, addresses this concern. As a bonus, we can also
> refactor
> > > the
> > > >>>>>> code,
> > > >>>>>>> introduce better decoupling, get rid of kernel context, and
> develop
> > > >>>>> unit
> > > >>>>>>> tests (finally!).
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Basically, this proposal only affects the *process*, not the
> set of
> > > >>>>>> changes
> > > >>>>>>> we had discussed before. Ignite 3.0 is our unique chance to
> make
> > > >>>> things
> > > >>>>>>> right.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> -Val
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:06 AM Kseniya Romanova <
> > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Pavel, all the interesting points will be anyway published
> here in
> > > >>>>>>> English
> > > >>>>>>>> (as the principal "if it's not on devlist it doesn't
> happened" is
> > > >>>>> still
> > > >>>>>>>> relevant). This is just a quick call for a group of
> developers.
> > > >>>> Later
> > > >>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>> can do a separate presentation of idea and discussion in
> English
> > > as
> > > >>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>> did
> > > >>>>>>>> for the Ignite 3.0 draft of changes.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Kseniya,
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for scheduling this call.
> > > >>>>>>>>> Do you think we can switch to English if non-Russian speaking
> > > >>>>>> community
> > > >>>>>>>>> members decide to join?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:32 PM Kseniya Romanova <
> > > >>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Let's do this community discussion open. Here's the link on
> > > >>>> zoom
> > > >>>>>> call
> > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Russian for Friday 6 PM:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/events/274360378/
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 12:49, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Time works for me.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 3 нояб. 2020 г., в 12:40, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am up for the call. I will try to explain my reasoning
> in
> > > >>>>>>> greater
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> detail
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and will be glad to hear the concerns. Will this Friday,
> > > >>>> Nov
> > > >>>>>> 6th,
> > > >>>>>>>>> work?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 10:09, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, should we have a call for this topic?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 18:53, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not intend to rewrite everything from scratch
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be moved to
> > > >>>>> Ignite
> > > >>>>>> 3
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, thank you for the explanation, this addresses
> all
> > > >>>>> of
> > > >>>>>> my
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> concerns.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:43 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Igniters.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * AFAIU, we need a new repo if we want to apply
> > > >>>> different
> > > >>>>>>>>>> restrictions
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull requests,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise I see no difference for myself.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E.g. make static analysis (do we have?), compile,
> > > >>>> styles,
> > > >>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>> javadoc
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checks mandatory.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that relaxed requirements here will lead to bad
> > > >>>>>>> product
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> quality.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Agree with Pavel, we should 'keep' integrations tests
> > > >>>>>>> somehow.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> During active development tests will be broken most of
> > > >>>>> time,
> > > >>>>>>> so,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd port them e.g. suite-by-suite once we will have a
> > > >>>>> stable
> > > >>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> featured
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment to run them and of course make test's code
> > > >>>>> clear
> > > >>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>> avoid
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad/non-relevant ones.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * I like bottom-up approach.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With it we could make a better framework. I mean clear
> > > >>>>>>> component
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lifecycle,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> component wiring mechanics, general methods to approach
> > > >>>>> core
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> components
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as exchange/communication
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to avoid code mess like we have in ExchangeFuture with
> > > >>>> all
> > > >>>>>>> these
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> custom
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> callbacks for each component, interfaces like
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PartitionsExchangeAware, IgniteChangeGlobalStateSupport
> > > >>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pack of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> start/stop/onKernalStart/onPluginStart/onActivate/onDisconnected
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and so on in various unexpected places.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hope, we will be able to port most of the good code to
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>> new
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> framework
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay, Pavel,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback! First of all, I wanted to
> > > >>>> stress
> > > >>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>> I
> > > >>>>>>>>> do
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intend to rewrite everything from scratch (I never
> used
> > > >>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>> phrase).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are significant parts of code that would be moved with
> > > >>>>>>> minimal
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modifications. Second, I never said that we will get
> > > >>>> rid
> > > >>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>> old
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be
> > > >>>>> moved
> > > >>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is that for some parts of the code a clean
> > > >>>>>> bottom-up
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation will be cheaper in many ways. Let me
> > > >>>> give
> > > >>>>>> you
> > > >>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>> few
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concrete
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I think no one can object that we need a cleanly
> > > >>>>>> separated
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistence
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> layer for Ignite. There is a very raw draft IEP for
> > > >>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>> already.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, I think we also can agree that we need a
> > > >>>>>>>> split-brain
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resistant
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol for caches. There is also an IEP
> > > >>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>> this.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the changes is a good fit for 2.x because they are
> > > >>>>> likely
> > > >>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking changes in the persistence layer,
> > > >>>> configuration
> > > >>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, these components are now tightly
> > > >>>> coupled,
> > > >>>>> so
> > > >>>>>>>> there
> > > >>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two changes can be implemented in parallel and
> > > >>>>> then
> > > >>>>>>>> merged
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily. So what we will end up with is having to
> > > >>>>> implement
> > > >>>>>>>> these
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially, fixing all existing tests twice, and
> > > >>>>>>> essentially
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throwing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away half of the work done because the other part of
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> change
> > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-implemented
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Similar example goes with getting rid of
> > > >>>>>>>> IgniteInternalFuture
> > > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replacing it with CompletableFuture, and any other
> > > >>>>> change
> > > >>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> touches
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asynchronous part of the code.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Third, I do not see how this choice affects the UX of
> > > >>>>>> Ignite.
> > > >>>>>>>> The
> > > >>>>>>>>>> end
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience must be fixed in the IEP regardless of the
> > > >>>>>>>> development
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> process
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the fact that we have gaps in this area in Ignite
> > > >>>> 2.x
> > > >>>>>>> just
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> confirms
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavel, agree that a repo/branch is a technicality, I
> > > >>>>> guess
> > > >>>>>> if
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reformulate,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my point is that we might agree to have a single
> > > >>>>>> development
> > > >>>>>>>>> master
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with 'disassembled' end-to-end functionality for some
> > > >>>>>> period
> > > >>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>> time
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed up development, and re-assemble the core
> features
> > > >>>>>> after
> > > >>>>>>>>>> having
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submodules tested independently.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> > > >>>>> support,
> > > >>>>>>>> etc.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not very specific. In the end, resources are
> > > >>>>>> limited
> > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be able to drive both tracks simultaneously,
> > > >>>>> especially
> > > >>>>>>>>> after a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of features having been implemented for Ignite 3.0. If
> > > >>>>>> there
> > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> indeed
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some major changes that we want to do in Ignite 2.x
> > > >>>>> instead
> > > >>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> putting
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort into 3.0 - let's discuss them. I am just not
> > > >>>> aware
> > > >>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>> any,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I am eager to move forward with Ignite 3.0.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
> > > >>>> without
> > > >>>>>>>>> breaking
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backward
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with
> all
> > > >>>>>> it’s
> > > >>>>>>>>>> issues.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These changes will be covered by end-to-end tests and
> > > >>>>>>> migrated
> > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0, so I see no issues here.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, Anton & Nikolay
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not have an estimate for this simply because the
> > > >>>>>>> activity
> > > >>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community-driven and it depends on the number of
> people
> > > >>>>>>> willing
> > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribute. With the current pace, I would hope to
> have
> > > >>>>> an
> > > >>>>>> RC
> > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be ready by the end of 2021. My gut feeling is that
> > > >>>> by
> > > >>>>>>>> moving
> > > >>>>>>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incremental changes, we will not be able to implement
> > > >>>>> even
> > > >>>>>>> half
> > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wishlist by that time.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt that releasing several major releases with
> > > >>>>> breaking
> > > >>>>>>>>> changes
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make Ignite users happy either because each upgrade
> > > >>>> will
> > > >>>>>> cost
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money, so the fewer major versions we release, the
> > > >>>>> better.
> > > >>>>>>> Thus
> > > >>>>>>>>> my
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> wish
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include all breaking changes in one release.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll be now quiet for a while, let's see what other
> > > >>>>>> community
> > > >>>>>>>>>> members
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Rewriting from scratch is never a good idea.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't want to follow the path of Netscape and lose
> > > >>>>> all
> > > >>>>>>> our
> > > >>>>>>>>>> users
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the time we have a working 3.0 [1]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Not sure about new repo - seems like some pain and
> > > >>>> no
> > > >>>>>>> gain,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> what's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem with a branch?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. We should keep existing integration tests when
> > > >>>>>> possible.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have accumulated a lot of edge case knowledge over
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> years,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not a good idea to send all of that down the
> > > >>>>> drain.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, integration tests are slow, but they are the
> most
> > > >>>>>>>> valuable.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can move more stuff into nightly runs and
> > > >>>>> have
> > > >>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>> fast
> > > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic suite.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, you are much more familiar with the Ignite
> > > >>>> core
> > > >>>>>>>> codebase
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> than
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of us,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please explain in more detail which
> particular
> > > >>>>>>>> feature,
> > > >>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mandates this "start from scratch" approach?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it really not possible at all to follow a less
> > > >>>>> radical
> > > >>>>>>> way?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > >
> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:25 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that «rewriting from scratch» approach has a
> > > >>>>> high
> > > >>>>>>>> risk
> > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features unusable.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the time Ignite2 was started no-one wants to do
> > > >>>> bad
> > > >>>>> UX
> > > >>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>> bad
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, it happen.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can avoid it with the Ignite3 and
> > > >>>> successors
> > > >>>>>> if
> > > >>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step by step without keeping backward compatibility
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With the step by step approach, we can focus on each
> > > >>>>>>>> component
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separately.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement for
> > > >>>>>> Ignite
> > > >>>>>>>> 2.x?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> > > >>>>>> support,
> > > >>>>>>>> etc.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
> > > >>>>> without
> > > >>>>>>>>> breaking
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backward
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with
> > > >>>> all
> > > >>>>>> it’s
> > > >>>>>>>>>> issues.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 14:09, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have any estimates of how fast we'll be able
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>>>> gain
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production-ready
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI 3.0 in case of a "new repo" choice?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:01 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement for
> > > >>>>>> Ignite
> > > >>>>>>>>> 2.x?
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we commence working on Ignite 3.0, we should
> > > >>>>> gradually
> > > >>>>>>>> cease
> > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Ignite 2.x to mere bugfixes because such
> > > >>>> parallel
> > > >>>>>>>>>> development
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwhelming regardless of how we choose to
> > > >>>> proceed.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:38, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be clear:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest creating a new repository for
> > > >>>>> Ignite
> > > >>>>>>> 3.0
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean branch, but a new repo looks nicer to me)
> > > >>>> and
> > > >>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>> new
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TeamCity project.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for new Team City project.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for new branch for Ignite3.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 for new repo.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:35, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it will hurt our project more than help.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Developing new features for 2 separate branches
> > > >>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APIs
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and internal structure is overwhelming
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should relax a bit requirements for
> > > >>>>> Ignite3?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should move step by step and make
> > > >>>> Ignite3
> > > >>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>> new
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration than Ignite4 with new transactions,
> > > >>>>> etc?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:14, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to pitch a rather radical idea
> > > >>>> regarding
> > > >>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development which has occurred to me some time
> > > >>>>> ago.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We already have several IEPs targeted to Ignite
> > > >>>>> 3.0
> > > >>>>>>>> which
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> imply
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to the codebase (the change in
> > > >>>> replication
> > > >>>>>>>>> protocol
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactions, change in binary format, updated
> > > >>>>>>>>> metastorage,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planned significant changes in public APIs:
> > > >>>>>>>> configuration
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements in cache APIs, SQL APIs,
> > > >>>> transaction
> > > >>>>>> mode
> > > >>>>>>>>>> rework.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wishlist
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of changes for Ignite 3.0 is huge.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I was wondering whether it makes sense to
> > > >>>> try
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>> change
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase, or start with a new baseline and move
> > > >>>>> old
> > > >>>>>>>> pieces
> > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not require significant rework. Personally, I
> > > >>>>> would
> > > >>>>>> go
> > > >>>>>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option for the following reasons:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We have a chance to shift the development
> > > >>>>> paradigm
> > > >>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce the practice of true unit-tests. In
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>> new
> > > >>>>>>>>>> baseline
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning there will be no ability to run an
> > > >>>>>>> end-to-end
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be forced to write unit-tests. So far,
> such
> > > >>>>>>>> practice
> > > >>>>>>>>>> was
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement because of tight coupling between
> > > >>>> Ignite
> > > >>>>>>>>>> components
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inability
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to instantiate components without an instance
> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> KernalContext.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, we should be able to thoroughly test
> > > >>>>>> internal
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primitives,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol (without actual
> > > >>>>> communication),
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metastorage contracts, persistence layer, etc.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will significantly reduce the development
> > > >>>>> cycle
> > > >>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (right now the RunAll takes two hours of
> > > >>>>>> astronomical
> > > >>>>>>>> time
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> empty
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TC;
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the new approach developer will be able to
> > > >>>> run
> > > >>>>>> ALL
> > > >>>>>>>>> tests
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locally
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of minutes)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We can get rid of TC bot and enforce green TC
> > > >>>> by
> > > >>>>>>>>>> integrating
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TC
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results with GitHub PRs (the same way Travis is
> > > >>>>>>>> currently
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrated
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to PR
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check). We should restrict PR merge without a
> TC
> > > >>>>>> check
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will still have to re-write all tests, but
> > > >>>>> only
> > > >>>>>>>> once.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> If
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modify the old codebase, we would need to
> modify
> > > >>>>> all
> > > >>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>> tests
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major change (public API change, configuration
> > > >>>>>> change)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will have fewer conflicts when working
> > > >>>>>> together.
> > > >>>>>>>> For
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot imagine how one would merge two changes
> > > >>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>> getting
> > > >>>>>>>>>> rid
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteFuture and changes in replication
> > > >>>> protocol,
> > > >>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>> example
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Technically, I would suggest creating a new
> > > >>>>>> repository
> > > >>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a new clean branch, but a new repo
> > > >>>> looks
> > > >>>>>>> nicer
> > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> me)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3.0 TeamCity project.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While it may seem quite radical, I do believe
> > > >>>> that
> > > >>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us more benefits than trying to make such major
> > > >>>>>>> changes
> > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. If needed, let's schedule a discord
> > > >>>> chat
> > > >>>>>>> like
> > > >>>>>>>>>> before
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Best regards,
> > > >>> Alexei Scherbakov
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy
>

[Alexey Goncharuk]

Folks,

I think we are overly driven away by the phrase 'new repo' rather than the
essence of my suggestion. We can keep developing in the same repo, we can
even keep developing in the master branch. My point is that Ignite 3.0 is a
chance to move on with the architecture, so if we really want to make
architectural improvements, we should not strive for incremental changes
for *some parts of the code*.

Maxim,

To comment on your examples: I think that the huge effort that is currently
required to make any significant change in Ignite is the perfect example of
how we lack structure in the codebase. Yes, theoretically we can introduce
incremental changes in the code that will improve the structure, but my
question is: we did not do it before, what will enforce us to make these
changes now? With the current approach, adding a new feature increases the
test time non-linearly because without proper decoupling you have to test
all possible combinations of features together. We can move faster than
that.

I also do not agree that we should reduce the scope of Ignite 3.0 that
much. I do not see how the schema-first approach can be properly and
reliably implemented without a reliable HA metastorage, which in turn
requires a reliable replication protocol to be implemented. Besides, if a
number of people want to work on some Ignite feature, why should they wait
because not all community members have time to review the changes?

Let's indeed focus on Sergey's suggestions on the design->development
approach. I back both Nikolay's and Maxim's scope, but I think we should
unite them, not intersect, and the minimal list of changes to be included
to Ignite 3.0 is:

   - API & configuration cleanup
   - New management tool
   - Schema-first approach
   - New replication infrastructure

Any smaller subset of changes will leave Ignite 3.0 in a transient state
with people being too afraid to move to it because there are more major
breaking changes scheduled.

пт, 13 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:28, Alexey Zinoviev <[hidden email]>:

> I'm -1 for creating a new repo.
> Also I support Maxim's plan for 3.0
>
> пт, 13 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:50, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Val,
> >
> >
> > Why *creating a new repo* is the main point we faced with? Would it be
> > better to discuss the components design approach and scope management
> > first suggested by Sergey Chugunov? I doubt that new repo will solve
> > move us forward.
> >
> > Currently, I'm -1 to create a new repo with the inputs above.
> >
> > In addition to Nikolay's answer I see the following drawbacks of
> > creating new repo:
> > - we have very few positive examples of finalizing really huge
> > improvements to *production-ready* states the others remains
> > incomplete (MVCC, Calcite, Zookeeper, Tracing, Thread per Partition,
> > etc)
> > - AFAIK, the Native Persistence took a very long period of
> > stabilization even after it has been developed (we must take it into
> > account for developing new features like IEP-61)
> > - feature development for a long period of time (like 3.0) without any
> > releases will lead to all these changes became obsolete at the moment
> > of release (AFAIK the 2.8 which released a year ago still has no big
> > deployments)
> > - human resources -- some of the Igniters may lose their interest for
> > 3.0 during development, some of them may switch to different projects,
> > etc.
> > - do we all estimating the scope of 3.0 correct? The 2.8 release took 1.5
> > years.
> >
> > Have I missed something?
> >
> >
> > I suggest the following plan:
> >
> > - initiate 3.0 development in the master branch (after 2.10 release
> > change version to 3.0-SNAPSHOT instead of 2.11-SNAPSHOT)
> > - cleanup and collapse all the current APIs (see To Be Removed List
> > For Discussion on Apache Ignite 3.0 Wishlist)
> > - reduce the scope for 3.0 even more. I suggest focusing on two
> > things: Calcite + Schema-first approach
> > - create feature branches for proposed IEPs (for 3.0 only)
> > - create the release road map (allocate e.g. IEP-61 to 4.0 etc.)
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 14:03, Ivan Daschinsky <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> b. Implement IEP-61 - Common Replication Infrastructure
> > > I suppose, that this is the main cause of the current discussion.
> > > I hardly believe that this activity can be done without at least
> > creating a
> > > completely new branch.
> > >
> > > пт, 13 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:12, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > My suggestion:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Reduce Ignite3 scope to the following:
> > > >         a. Delete all deprecated API and support of obsolete internal
> > > > protocols.
> > > >         b. Implement IEP-61 - Common Replication Infrastructure
> > > >         c. Implement new Ignite management tool ignitectl as
> suggested
> > > > during Ignite3 discussion.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Implement and release following improvements like transactions,
> > Calcite
> > > > based SQL, etc in the ongoing releases - Ignite 4, 5, 6
> > > >
> > > > My concern against separate Ignite 3 repo is the following:
> > > >
> > > > 1. We spread community to the two very separated part - Ignite3
> > developers
> > > > and Ignite2 maintainers.  believe it’s bad for our community.
> > > >         That can lead to the situation when we don’t fix critical or
> > > > blocker issueds «because they will not exists in Ignite3»
> > > >         That will lead to the solutions never reviewed or reviewed
> > poorly.
> > > >
> > > > 2. It seems for me that current scope of Ignite3 is too big to be
> > > > implemented in any reasonable time.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 13 нояб. 2020 г., в 10:57, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > написал(а):
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello, Valentin.
> > > > >
> > > > >> Nikolay, Maxim, are you OK with this route?
> > > > >
> > > > > -1 to have another repo for Ignite3 development.
> > > > >
> > > > >> 13 нояб. 2020 г., в 03:04, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > [hidden email]> написал(а):
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Folks,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> We already have multiple IEPs for Ignite 3.0, and as far as I
> know,
> > > > there are contributors that would like to work on them (or probably
> > already
> > > > started). That said, we should make a decision as soon as possible.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> At this point, it doesn't seem that there are any strong
> objections
> > to
> > > > the technical side of things. So I would suggest the following:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 1. Proceed with Alexey's approach to the development process, as
> it
> > > > seems to be the best (in my opinion - the only) way to address all
> the
> > > > technical concerns and issues expressed in the thread. We'll start by
> > > > creating a new repo and a new TC project.
> > > > >> 2. Start a separate discussion around transparency. If there are
> any
> > > > changes we need to make to our contributor guidelines, I am happy to
> > talk
> > > > them through, but I don't think it's reasonable to delay feature
> > > > development because of this. In the short term, I will make sure that
> > > > everything that happens within the new repo is as open to the
> > community as
> > > > possible.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Nikolay, Maxim, are you OK with this route?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -Val
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 4:55 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >> Maxim,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2.x and 3.x will have to coexist for some time - I don't see how
> we
> > can
> > > > avoid this considering the set of proposed changes. That said, we
> > > > effectively will need to have two "masters" - one for each major
> > version.
> > > > Master for 3.x can technically be a branch in the existing repo, but
> > having
> > > > a separate repo seems cleaner, simply because it will not be a
> > "branch" in
> > > > the traditional sense.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Note that the new repo will still be under the Apache org, with
> the
> > > > same set of committers, managed by the community, etc. All the
> > development
> > > > happening for 3.0 must follow the rules that we currently have (if
> > > > anything, it's an opportunity to improve those rules).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As I said during the call on Friday, I strongly believe that if
> > there
> > > > is a transparency issue, it will exist regardless of the approach we
> > choose
> > > > for 3.0. If community members develop without IEPs or public
> > discussions,
> > > > this will happen for both 2.x and 3.x unless we address this
> > separately. I
> > > > don't see how this is related to Alexey's suggestion, which targets
> > > > *technical* issues with the product more than anything else. This a
> > way to
> > > > achieve better modularity, introduce better coverage with unit tests,
> > > > reduce conflicts during development, etc.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Coming back to transparency, let's identify the issues and fix
> > them. It
> > > > probably makes sense to have a separate discussion on this topic.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -Val
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:05 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> Sergey,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Your summary makes sense to me.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> However, how we come up from *Development transparency* to
> *create a
> > > > >> separate public repository dedicated for 3.0*? For me *development
> > > > >> transparency* is about making changes in the master branch. These
> > > > >> changes will definitely be seen by all the Ignite developers.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A dedicated public repository is technically public and visible
> for
> > > > >> everyone, but it allows development without IEPs, without public
> > > > >> discussion (since all the code changes are not related to the
> master
> > > > >> branch) it also allows a large number of assumptions and
> deviations
> > > > >> (like code-style violations). It also not about *development
> > > > >> transparency* since developers which are working on 3.0 is only a
> > > > >> subset of all Ignite developers which may continue working on 2.x.
> > For
> > > > >> me, this would be a huge step backwards.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Ignite veterans should remember how long the branch stabilization
> > took
> > > > >> for the 2.x version with the PDS.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I think each breaking change should be passed through the master
> > branch.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 22:18, Alexei Scherbakov
> > > > >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Makes sense to me.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> вт, 10 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:47, Sergey Chugunov <
> > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Igniters,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I thought over Friday meeting ideas and concerns and summarized
> > them
> > > > in
> > > > >>>> these three points:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>   1. *Components design unification approach.* New proposed
> > components
> > > > >>>>   will be developed by different contributors, but they need to
> be
> > > > unified
> > > > >>>>   and should integrate with each other easily. To ensure that I
> > > > suggest
> > > > >>>>   calling an architecture group that will create design
> guidelines
> > > > for all
> > > > >>>>   components and high-level overview of overall architecture.
> How
> > > > code is
> > > > >>>>   split into components, what are component boundaries, how
> > component
> > > > >>>>   lifecycle works and what are its interfaces - all these and
> > other
> > > > >>>> questions
> > > > >>>>   should be covered.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>   2. *Scope management.* Apache 3.0 should be implemented
> within a
> > > > >>>>   reasonable time, so we need some procedure to decide whether a
> > > > >>>> particular
> > > > >>>>   feature should be dropped from the scope of 3.0 and postponed
> > to 3.1
> > > > >>>>   release. To do so I suggest to range all features by two
> > parameters:
> > > > >>>>   criticality for 3.0 and amount of breaking changes. 3.0 scope
> > should
> > > > >>>>   include features of high criticality AND features with a big
> > amount
> > > > of
> > > > >>>>   breaking changes. All other features can be made optional.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>   3. *Development transparency.* Development of all components
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > >>>>   made as transparent for everyone as possible. Any contributor
> > > > should be
> > > > >>>>   able to look over any component at any stage of development.
> To
> > > > achieve
> > > > >>>>   this I suggest to create a separate public repository
> dedicated
> > for
> > > > 3.0
> > > > >>>>   development. It will make the code available for everyone but
> > when
> > > > >>>>   development of 3.0 is done we won't loose any stars of our
> > current
> > > > >>>>   repository as we merge dev repo into main one and drop dev.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Do these ideas make sense to you? Are there any concerns not
> > covered
> > > > by
> > > > >>>> these suggestions?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:36 PM Kseniya Romanova <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Here are the slides from Alexey Goncharuk. Let's think this
> over
> > and
> > > > >>>>> continue on Monday:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> >
> https://go.gridgain.com/rs/491-TWR-806/images/Ignite_3_Plans_and_development_process.pdf
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> чт, 5 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:13, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Folks,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Should we perform cleanup work before (r)evolutional changes?
> > > > >>>>>> My huge proposal is to get rid of things which we don't need
> > anyway
> > > > >>>>>> - local caches,
> > > > >>>>>> - strange tx modes,
> > > > >>>>>> - code overcomplexity because of RollingUpgrade feature never
> > > > attended
> > > > >>>> at
> > > > >>>>>> AI,
> > > > >>>>>> - etc,
> > > > >>>>>> before choosing the way.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:31 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Ksenia, thanks for scheduling this on such short notice!
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> As for the original topic, I do support Alexey's idea. We're
> > not
> > > > >>>> going
> > > > >>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>> rewrite anything from scratch, as most of the components are
> > going
> > > > to
> > > > >>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>> moved as-is or with minimal modifications. However, the
> changes
> > > > that
> > > > >>>>> are
> > > > >>>>>>> proposed imply serious rework of the core parts of the code,
> > which
> > > > >>>> are
> > > > >>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>> properly decoupled from each other and from other parts. This
> > makes
> > > > >>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>> incremental approach borderline impossible. Developing in a
> new
> > > > repo,
> > > > >>>>>>> however, addresses this concern. As a bonus, we can also
> > refactor
> > > > the
> > > > >>>>>> code,
> > > > >>>>>>> introduce better decoupling, get rid of kernel context, and
> > develop
> > > > >>>>> unit
> > > > >>>>>>> tests (finally!).
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Basically, this proposal only affects the *process*, not the
> > set of
> > > > >>>>>> changes
> > > > >>>>>>> we had discussed before. Ignite 3.0 is our unique chance to
> > make
> > > > >>>> things
> > > > >>>>>>> right.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> -Val
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:06 AM Kseniya Romanova <
> > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Pavel, all the interesting points will be anyway published
> > here in
> > > > >>>>>>> English
> > > > >>>>>>>> (as the principal "if it's not on devlist it doesn't
> > happened" is
> > > > >>>>> still
> > > > >>>>>>>> relevant). This is just a quick call for a group of
> > developers.
> > > > >>>> Later
> > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>> can do a separate presentation of idea and discussion in
> > English
> > > > as
> > > > >>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>> did
> > > > >>>>>>>> for the Ignite 3.0 draft of changes.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Kseniya,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for scheduling this call.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Do you think we can switch to English if non-Russian
> speaking
> > > > >>>>>> community
> > > > >>>>>>>>> members decide to join?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:32 PM Kseniya Romanova <
> > > > >>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Let's do this community discussion open. Here's the link
> on
> > > > >>>> zoom
> > > > >>>>>> call
> > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Russian for Friday 6 PM:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/events/274360378/
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 12:49, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > >>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Time works for me.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 3 нояб. 2020 г., в 12:40, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am up for the call. I will try to explain my reasoning
> > in
> > > > >>>>>>> greater
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> detail
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and will be glad to hear the concerns. Will this Friday,
> > > > >>>> Nov
> > > > >>>>>> 6th,
> > > > >>>>>>>>> work?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 10:09, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, should we have a call for this topic?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 18:53, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not intend to rewrite everything from scratch
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be moved to
> > > > >>>>> Ignite
> > > > >>>>>> 3
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, thank you for the explanation, this addresses
> > all
> > > > >>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>> my
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> concerns.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:43 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Igniters.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * AFAIU, we need a new repo if we want to apply
> > > > >>>> different
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> restrictions
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull requests,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise I see no difference for myself.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E.g. make static analysis (do we have?), compile,
> > > > >>>> styles,
> > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> javadoc
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checks mandatory.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that relaxed requirements here will lead to
> bad
> > > > >>>>>>> product
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> quality.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Agree with Pavel, we should 'keep' integrations
> tests
> > > > >>>>>>> somehow.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> During active development tests will be broken most
> of
> > > > >>>>> time,
> > > > >>>>>>> so,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd port them e.g. suite-by-suite once we will have a
> > > > >>>>> stable
> > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> featured
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment to run them and of course make test's
> code
> > > > >>>>> clear
> > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> avoid
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad/non-relevant ones.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * I like bottom-up approach.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With it we could make a better framework. I mean
> clear
> > > > >>>>>>> component
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lifecycle,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> component wiring mechanics, general methods to
> approach
> > > > >>>>> core
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> components
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as exchange/communication
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to avoid code mess like we have in ExchangeFuture
> with
> > > > >>>> all
> > > > >>>>>>> these
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> custom
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> callbacks for each component, interfaces like
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PartitionsExchangeAware,
> IgniteChangeGlobalStateSupport
> > > > >>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pack of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> start/stop/onKernalStart/onPluginStart/onActivate/onDisconnected
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and so on in various unexpected places.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hope, we will be able to port most of the good code
> to
> > > > >>>> the
> > > > >>>>>> new
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> framework
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay, Pavel,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback! First of all, I wanted to
> > > > >>>> stress
> > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>>>> do
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intend to rewrite everything from scratch (I never
> > used
> > > > >>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> phrase).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are significant parts of code that would be moved
> with
> > > > >>>>>>> minimal
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modifications. Second, I never said that we will get
> > > > >>>> rid
> > > > >>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>> old
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. Every single test from Ignite 2.x should
> be
> > > > >>>>> moved
> > > > >>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is that for some parts of the code a clean
> > > > >>>>>> bottom-up
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation will be cheaper in many ways. Let me
> > > > >>>> give
> > > > >>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>> few
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concrete
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I think no one can object that we need a cleanly
> > > > >>>>>> separated
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistence
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> layer for Ignite. There is a very raw draft IEP for
> > > > >>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>> already.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, I think we also can agree that we need a
> > > > >>>>>>>> split-brain
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resistant
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol for caches. There is also an
> IEP
> > > > >>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>> this.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the changes is a good fit for 2.x because they are
> > > > >>>>> likely
> > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking changes in the persistence layer,
> > > > >>>> configuration
> > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, these components are now tightly
> > > > >>>> coupled,
> > > > >>>>> so
> > > > >>>>>>>> there
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two changes can be implemented in parallel and
> > > > >>>>> then
> > > > >>>>>>>> merged
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily. So what we will end up with is having to
> > > > >>>>> implement
> > > > >>>>>>>> these
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially, fixing all existing tests twice, and
> > > > >>>>>>> essentially
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throwing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away half of the work done because the other part of
> > > > >>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> change
> > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-implemented
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Similar example goes with getting rid of
> > > > >>>>>>>> IgniteInternalFuture
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replacing it with CompletableFuture, and any other
> > > > >>>>> change
> > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> touches
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asynchronous part of the code.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Third, I do not see how this choice affects the UX
> of
> > > > >>>>>> Ignite.
> > > > >>>>>>>> The
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> end
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience must be fixed in the IEP regardless of
> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> development
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> process
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the fact that we have gaps in this area in
> Ignite
> > > > >>>> 2.x
> > > > >>>>>>> just
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> confirms
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavel, agree that a repo/branch is a technicality, I
> > > > >>>>> guess
> > > > >>>>>> if
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reformulate,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my point is that we might agree to have a single
> > > > >>>>>> development
> > > > >>>>>>>>> master
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with 'disassembled' end-to-end functionality for
> some
> > > > >>>>>> period
> > > > >>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> time
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed up development, and re-assemble the core
> > features
> > > > >>>>>> after
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> having
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submodules tested independently.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> > > > >>>>> support,
> > > > >>>>>>>> etc.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not very specific. In the end, resources are
> > > > >>>>>> limited
> > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be able to drive both tracks simultaneously,
> > > > >>>>> especially
> > > > >>>>>>>>> after a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of features having been implemented for Ignite 3.0.
> If
> > > > >>>>>> there
> > > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> indeed
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some major changes that we want to do in Ignite 2.x
> > > > >>>>> instead
> > > > >>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> putting
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort into 3.0 - let's discuss them. I am just not
> > > > >>>> aware
> > > > >>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>> any,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I am eager to move forward with Ignite 3.0.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
> > > > >>>> without
> > > > >>>>>>>>> breaking
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backward
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with
> > all
> > > > >>>>>> it’s
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> issues.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These changes will be covered by end-to-end tests
> and
> > > > >>>>>>> migrated
> > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0, so I see no issues here.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, Anton & Nikolay
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not have an estimate for this simply because
> the
> > > > >>>>>>> activity
> > > > >>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community-driven and it depends on the number of
> > people
> > > > >>>>>>> willing
> > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribute. With the current pace, I would hope to
> > have
> > > > >>>>> an
> > > > >>>>>> RC
> > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be ready by the end of 2021. My gut feeling is
> that
> > > > >>>> by
> > > > >>>>>>>> moving
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incremental changes, we will not be able to
> implement
> > > > >>>>> even
> > > > >>>>>>> half
> > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wishlist by that time.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt that releasing several major releases with
> > > > >>>>> breaking
> > > > >>>>>>>>> changes
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make Ignite users happy either because each upgrade
> > > > >>>> will
> > > > >>>>>> cost
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money, so the fewer major versions we release, the
> > > > >>>>> better.
> > > > >>>>>>> Thus
> > > > >>>>>>>>> my
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wish
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include all breaking changes in one release.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll be now quiet for a while, let's see what other
> > > > >>>>>> community
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> members
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Rewriting from scratch is never a good idea.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't want to follow the path of Netscape and
> lose
> > > > >>>>> all
> > > > >>>>>>> our
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> users
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the time we have a working 3.0 [1]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Not sure about new repo - seems like some pain
> and
> > > > >>>> no
> > > > >>>>>>> gain,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> what's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem with a branch?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. We should keep existing integration tests when
> > > > >>>>>> possible.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have accumulated a lot of edge case knowledge
> over
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> years,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not a good idea to send all of that down the
> > > > >>>>> drain.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, integration tests are slow, but they are the
> > most
> > > > >>>>>>>> valuable.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can move more stuff into nightly runs
> and
> > > > >>>>> have
> > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>> fast
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic suite.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, you are much more familiar with the Ignite
> > > > >>>> core
> > > > >>>>>>>> codebase
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> than
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of us,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please explain in more detail which
> > particular
> > > > >>>>>>>> feature,
> > > > >>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mandates this "start from scratch" approach?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it really not possible at all to follow a less
> > > > >>>>> radical
> > > > >>>>>>> way?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> >
> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:25 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that «rewriting from scratch» approach
> has a
> > > > >>>>> high
> > > > >>>>>>>> risk
> > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features unusable.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the time Ignite2 was started no-one wants to do
> > > > >>>> bad
> > > > >>>>> UX
> > > > >>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>> bad
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, it happen.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can avoid it with the Ignite3 and
> > > > >>>> successors
> > > > >>>>>> if
> > > > >>>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step by step without keeping backward
> compatibility
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With the step by step approach, we can focus on
> each
> > > > >>>>>>>> component
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separately.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement
> for
> > > > >>>>>> Ignite
> > > > >>>>>>>> 2.x?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> > > > >>>>>> support,
> > > > >>>>>>>> etc.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
> > > > >>>>> without
> > > > >>>>>>>>> breaking
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backward
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with
> > > > >>>> all
> > > > >>>>>> it’s
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> issues.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 14:09, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > >>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have any estimates of how fast we'll be
> able
> > > > >>>> to
> > > > >>>>>> gain
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production-ready
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI 3.0 in case of a "new repo" choice?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:01 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement
> for
> > > > >>>>>> Ignite
> > > > >>>>>>>>> 2.x?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we commence working on Ignite 3.0, we should
> > > > >>>>> gradually
> > > > >>>>>>>> cease
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Ignite 2.x to mere bugfixes because such
> > > > >>>> parallel
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> development
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwhelming regardless of how we choose to
> > > > >>>> proceed.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:38, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be clear:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest creating a new repository for
> > > > >>>>> Ignite
> > > > >>>>>>> 3.0
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean branch, but a new repo looks nicer to me)
> > > > >>>> and
> > > > >>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>> new
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TeamCity project.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for new Team City project.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for new branch for Ignite3.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 for new repo.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:35, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it will hurt our project more than
> help.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Developing new features for 2 separate
> branches
> > > > >>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APIs
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and internal structure is overwhelming
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should relax a bit requirements for
> > > > >>>>> Ignite3?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should move step by step and make
> > > > >>>> Ignite3
> > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>> new
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration than Ignite4 with new
> transactions,
> > > > >>>>> etc?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:14, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to pitch a rather radical idea
> > > > >>>> regarding
> > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development which has occurred to me some
> time
> > > > >>>>> ago.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We already have several IEPs targeted to
> Ignite
> > > > >>>>> 3.0
> > > > >>>>>>>> which
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> imply
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to the codebase (the change in
> > > > >>>> replication
> > > > >>>>>>>>> protocol
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactions, change in binary format,
> updated
> > > > >>>>>>>>> metastorage,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planned significant changes in public APIs:
> > > > >>>>>>>> configuration
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements in cache APIs, SQL APIs,
> > > > >>>> transaction
> > > > >>>>>> mode
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> rework.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wishlist
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of changes for Ignite 3.0 is huge.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I was wondering whether it makes sense to
> > > > >>>> try
> > > > >>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>> change
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase, or start with a new baseline and
> move
> > > > >>>>> old
> > > > >>>>>>>> pieces
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not require significant rework. Personally, I
> > > > >>>>> would
> > > > >>>>>> go
> > > > >>>>>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option for the following reasons:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We have a chance to shift the development
> > > > >>>>> paradigm
> > > > >>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce the practice of true unit-tests. In
> > > > >>>> the
> > > > >>>>>> new
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> baseline
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning there will be no ability to run an
> > > > >>>>>>> end-to-end
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be forced to write unit-tests. So far,
> > such
> > > > >>>>>>>> practice
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> was
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement because of tight coupling between
> > > > >>>> Ignite
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> components
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inability
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to instantiate components without an instance
> > of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> KernalContext.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, we should be able to thoroughly test
> > > > >>>>>> internal
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primitives,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol (without actual
> > > > >>>>> communication),
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metastorage contracts, persistence layer,
> etc.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will significantly reduce the
> development
> > > > >>>>> cycle
> > > > >>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (right now the RunAll takes two hours of
> > > > >>>>>> astronomical
> > > > >>>>>>>> time
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> empty
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TC;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the new approach developer will be able to
> > > > >>>> run
> > > > >>>>>> ALL
> > > > >>>>>>>>> tests
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locally
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of minutes)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We can get rid of TC bot and enforce green
> TC
> > > > >>>> by
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> integrating
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TC
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results with GitHub PRs (the same way Travis
> is
> > > > >>>>>>>> currently
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrated
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to PR
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check). We should restrict PR merge without a
> > TC
> > > > >>>>>> check
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will still have to re-write all tests,
> but
> > > > >>>>> only
> > > > >>>>>>>> once.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> If
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modify the old codebase, we would need to
> > modify
> > > > >>>>> all
> > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> tests
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major change (public API change,
> configuration
> > > > >>>>>> change)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will have fewer conflicts when working
> > > > >>>>>> together.
> > > > >>>>>>>> For
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot imagine how one would merge two
> changes
> > > > >>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>> getting
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> rid
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteFuture and changes in replication
> > > > >>>> protocol,
> > > > >>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> example
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Technically, I would suggest creating a new
> > > > >>>>>> repository
> > > > >>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a new clean branch, but a new repo
> > > > >>>> looks
> > > > >>>>>>> nicer
> > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> me)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3.0 TeamCity project.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While it may seem quite radical, I do believe
> > > > >>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us more benefits than trying to make such
> major
> > > > >>>>>>> changes
> > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. If needed, let's schedule a discord
> > > > >>>> chat
> > > > >>>>>>> like
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> before
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Best regards,
> > > > >>> Alexei Scherbakov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy
> >
>

[Nikolay Izhikov-2]

> Let's indeed focus on Sergey's suggestions on the design->development approach.

+1

>   - API & configuration cleanup
>   - New management tool
>   - Schema-first approach
>   - New replication infrastructure

+1.

> 16 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:40, Alexey Goncharuk <[hidden email]> написал(а):
>
> Folks,
>
> I think we are overly driven away by the phrase 'new repo' rather than the
> essence of my suggestion. We can keep developing in the same repo, we can
> even keep developing in the master branch. My point is that Ignite 3.0 is a
> chance to move on with the architecture, so if we really want to make
> architectural improvements, we should not strive for incremental changes
> for *some parts of the code*.
>
> Maxim,
>
> To comment on your examples: I think that the huge effort that is currently
> required to make any significant change in Ignite is the perfect example of
> how we lack structure in the codebase. Yes, theoretically we can introduce
> incremental changes in the code that will improve the structure, but my
> question is: we did not do it before, what will enforce us to make these
> changes now? With the current approach, adding a new feature increases the
> test time non-linearly because without proper decoupling you have to test
> all possible combinations of features together. We can move faster than
> that.
>
> I also do not agree that we should reduce the scope of Ignite 3.0 that
> much. I do not see how the schema-first approach can be properly and
> reliably implemented without a reliable HA metastorage, which in turn
> requires a reliable replication protocol to be implemented. Besides, if a
> number of people want to work on some Ignite feature, why should they wait
> because not all community members have time to review the changes?
>
> Let's indeed focus on Sergey's suggestions on the design->development
> approach. I back both Nikolay's and Maxim's scope, but I think we should
> unite them, not intersect, and the minimal list of changes to be included
> to Ignite 3.0 is:
>
>   - API & configuration cleanup
>   - New management tool
>   - Schema-first approach
>   - New replication infrastructure
>
> Any smaller subset of changes will leave Ignite 3.0 in a transient state
> with people being too afraid to move to it because there are more major
> breaking changes scheduled.
>
> пт, 13 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:28, Alexey Zinoviev <[hidden email]>:
>
>> I'm -1 for creating a new repo.
>> Also I support Maxim's plan for 3.0
>>
>> пт, 13 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:50, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>> Val,
>>>
>>>
>>> Why *creating a new repo* is the main point we faced with? Would it be
>>> better to discuss the components design approach and scope management
>>> first suggested by Sergey Chugunov? I doubt that new repo will solve
>>> move us forward.
>>>
>>> Currently, I'm -1 to create a new repo with the inputs above.
>>>
>>> In addition to Nikolay's answer I see the following drawbacks of
>>> creating new repo:
>>> - we have very few positive examples of finalizing really huge
>>> improvements to *production-ready* states the others remains
>>> incomplete (MVCC, Calcite, Zookeeper, Tracing, Thread per Partition,
>>> etc)
>>> - AFAIK, the Native Persistence took a very long period of
>>> stabilization even after it has been developed (we must take it into
>>> account for developing new features like IEP-61)
>>> - feature development for a long period of time (like 3.0) without any
>>> releases will lead to all these changes became obsolete at the moment
>>> of release (AFAIK the 2.8 which released a year ago still has no big
>>> deployments)
>>> - human resources -- some of the Igniters may lose their interest for
>>> 3.0 during development, some of them may switch to different projects,
>>> etc.
>>> - do we all estimating the scope of 3.0 correct? The 2.8 release took 1.5
>>> years.
>>>
>>> Have I missed something?
>>>
>>>
>>> I suggest the following plan:
>>>
>>> - initiate 3.0 development in the master branch (after 2.10 release
>>> change version to 3.0-SNAPSHOT instead of 2.11-SNAPSHOT)
>>> - cleanup and collapse all the current APIs (see To Be Removed List
>>> For Discussion on Apache Ignite 3.0 Wishlist)
>>> - reduce the scope for 3.0 even more. I suggest focusing on two
>>> things: Calcite + Schema-first approach
>>> - create feature branches for proposed IEPs (for 3.0 only)
>>> - create the release road map (allocate e.g. IEP-61 to 4.0 etc.)
>>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 14:03, Ivan Daschinsky <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> b. Implement IEP-61 - Common Replication Infrastructure
>>>> I suppose, that this is the main cause of the current discussion.
>>>> I hardly believe that this activity can be done without at least
>>> creating a
>>>> completely new branch.
>>>>
>>>> пт, 13 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:12, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
>>>>
>>>>> My suggestion:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Reduce Ignite3 scope to the following:
>>>>>        a. Delete all deprecated API and support of obsolete internal
>>>>> protocols.
>>>>>        b. Implement IEP-61 - Common Replication Infrastructure
>>>>>        c. Implement new Ignite management tool ignitectl as
>> suggested
>>>>> during Ignite3 discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Implement and release following improvements like transactions,
>>> Calcite
>>>>> based SQL, etc in the ongoing releases - Ignite 4, 5, 6
>>>>>
>>>>> My concern against separate Ignite 3 repo is the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. We spread community to the two very separated part - Ignite3
>>> developers
>>>>> and Ignite2 maintainers.  believe it’s bad for our community.
>>>>>        That can lead to the situation when we don’t fix critical or
>>>>> blocker issueds «because they will not exists in Ignite3»
>>>>>        That will lead to the solutions never reviewed or reviewed
>>> poorly.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. It seems for me that current scope of Ignite3 is too big to be
>>>>> implemented in any reasonable time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 13 нояб. 2020 г., в 10:57, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]
>>>
>>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello, Valentin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nikolay, Maxim, are you OK with this route?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -1 to have another repo for Ignite3 development.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 13 нояб. 2020 г., в 03:04, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>> [hidden email]> написал(а):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We already have multiple IEPs for Ignite 3.0, and as far as I
>> know,
>>>>> there are contributors that would like to work on them (or probably
>>> already
>>>>> started). That said, we should make a decision as soon as possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At this point, it doesn't seem that there are any strong
>> objections
>>> to
>>>>> the technical side of things. So I would suggest the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Proceed with Alexey's approach to the development process, as
>> it
>>>>> seems to be the best (in my opinion - the only) way to address all
>> the
>>>>> technical concerns and issues expressed in the thread. We'll start by
>>>>> creating a new repo and a new TC project.
>>>>>>> 2. Start a separate discussion around transparency. If there are
>> any
>>>>> changes we need to make to our contributor guidelines, I am happy to
>>> talk
>>>>> them through, but I don't think it's reasonable to delay feature
>>>>> development because of this. In the short term, I will make sure that
>>>>> everything that happens within the new repo is as open to the
>>> community as
>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nikolay, Maxim, are you OK with this route?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 4:55 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Maxim,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2.x and 3.x will have to coexist for some time - I don't see how
>> we
>>> can
>>>>> avoid this considering the set of proposed changes. That said, we
>>>>> effectively will need to have two "masters" - one for each major
>>> version.
>>>>> Master for 3.x can technically be a branch in the existing repo, but
>>> having
>>>>> a separate repo seems cleaner, simply because it will not be a
>>> "branch" in
>>>>> the traditional sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that the new repo will still be under the Apache org, with
>> the
>>>>> same set of committers, managed by the community, etc. All the
>>> development
>>>>> happening for 3.0 must follow the rules that we currently have (if
>>>>> anything, it's an opportunity to improve those rules).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I said during the call on Friday, I strongly believe that if
>>> there
>>>>> is a transparency issue, it will exist regardless of the approach we
>>> choose
>>>>> for 3.0. If community members develop without IEPs or public
>>> discussions,
>>>>> this will happen for both 2.x and 3.x unless we address this
>>> separately. I
>>>>> don't see how this is related to Alexey's suggestion, which targets
>>>>> *technical* issues with the product more than anything else. This a
>>> way to
>>>>> achieve better modularity, introduce better coverage with unit tests,
>>>>> reduce conflicts during development, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Coming back to transparency, let's identify the issues and fix
>>> them. It
>>>>> probably makes sense to have a separate discussion on this topic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:05 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
>> [hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Sergey,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your summary makes sense to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, how we come up from *Development transparency* to
>> *create a
>>>>>>> separate public repository dedicated for 3.0*? For me *development
>>>>>>> transparency* is about making changes in the master branch. These
>>>>>>> changes will definitely be seen by all the Ignite developers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A dedicated public repository is technically public and visible
>> for
>>>>>>> everyone, but it allows development without IEPs, without public
>>>>>>> discussion (since all the code changes are not related to the
>> master
>>>>>>> branch) it also allows a large number of assumptions and
>> deviations
>>>>>>> (like code-style violations). It also not about *development
>>>>>>> transparency* since developers which are working on 3.0 is only a
>>>>>>> subset of all Ignite developers which may continue working on 2.x.
>>> For
>>>>>>> me, this would be a huge step backwards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ignite veterans should remember how long the branch stabilization
>>> took
>>>>>>> for the 2.x version with the PDS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think each breaking change should be passed through the master
>>> branch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 22:18, Alexei Scherbakov
>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Makes sense to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> вт, 10 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:47, Sergey Chugunov <
>>>>> [hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I thought over Friday meeting ideas and concerns and summarized
>>> them
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> these three points:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  1. *Components design unification approach.* New proposed
>>> components
>>>>>>>>>  will be developed by different contributors, but they need to
>> be
>>>>> unified
>>>>>>>>>  and should integrate with each other easily. To ensure that I
>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>  calling an architecture group that will create design
>> guidelines
>>>>> for all
>>>>>>>>>  components and high-level overview of overall architecture.
>> How
>>>>> code is
>>>>>>>>>  split into components, what are component boundaries, how
>>> component
>>>>>>>>>  lifecycle works and what are its interfaces - all these and
>>> other
>>>>>>>>> questions
>>>>>>>>>  should be covered.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  2. *Scope management.* Apache 3.0 should be implemented
>> within a
>>>>>>>>>  reasonable time, so we need some procedure to decide whether a
>>>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>>>  feature should be dropped from the scope of 3.0 and postponed
>>> to 3.1
>>>>>>>>>  release. To do so I suggest to range all features by two
>>> parameters:
>>>>>>>>>  criticality for 3.0 and amount of breaking changes. 3.0 scope
>>> should
>>>>>>>>>  include features of high criticality AND features with a big
>>> amount
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>  breaking changes. All other features can be made optional.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  3. *Development transparency.* Development of all components
>>> should
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>  made as transparent for everyone as possible. Any contributor
>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>  able to look over any component at any stage of development.
>> To
>>>>> achieve
>>>>>>>>>  this I suggest to create a separate public repository
>> dedicated
>>> for
>>>>> 3.0
>>>>>>>>>  development. It will make the code available for everyone but
>>> when
>>>>>>>>>  development of 3.0 is done we won't loose any stars of our
>>> current
>>>>>>>>>  repository as we merge dev repo into main one and drop dev.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do these ideas make sense to you? Are there any concerns not
>>> covered
>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> these suggestions?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:36 PM Kseniya Romanova <
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here are the slides from Alexey Goncharuk. Let's think this
>> over
>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> continue on Monday:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>> https://go.gridgain.com/rs/491-TWR-806/images/Ignite_3_Plans_and_development_process.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> чт, 5 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:13, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Should we perform cleanup work before (r)evolutional changes?
>>>>>>>>>>> My huge proposal is to get rid of things which we don't need
>>> anyway
>>>>>>>>>>> - local caches,
>>>>>>>>>>> - strange tx modes,
>>>>>>>>>>> - code overcomplexity because of RollingUpgrade feature never
>>>>> attended
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>> AI,
>>>>>>>>>>> - etc,
>>>>>>>>>>> before choosing the way.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:31 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ksenia, thanks for scheduling this on such short notice!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the original topic, I do support Alexey's idea. We're
>>> not
>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> rewrite anything from scratch, as most of the components are
>>> going
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> moved as-is or with minimal modifications. However, the
>> changes
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed imply serious rework of the core parts of the code,
>>> which
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> properly decoupled from each other and from other parts. This
>>> makes
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> incremental approach borderline impossible. Developing in a
>> new
>>>>> repo,
>>>>>>>>>>>> however, addresses this concern. As a bonus, we can also
>>> refactor
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> code,
>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce better decoupling, get rid of kernel context, and
>>> develop
>>>>>>>>>> unit
>>>>>>>>>>>> tests (finally!).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Basically, this proposal only affects the *process*, not the
>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>> we had discussed before. Ignite 3.0 is our unique chance to
>>> make
>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:06 AM Kseniya Romanova <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavel, all the interesting points will be anyway published
>>> here in
>>>>>>>>>>>> English
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (as the principal "if it's not on devlist it doesn't
>>> happened" is
>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant). This is just a quick call for a group of
>>> developers.
>>>>>>>>> Later
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do a separate presentation of idea and discussion in
>>> English
>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the Ignite 3.0 draft of changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kseniya,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for scheduling this call.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think we can switch to English if non-Russian
>> speaking
>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members decide to join?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:32 PM Kseniya Romanova <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's do this community discussion open. Here's the link
>> on
>>>>>>>>> zoom
>>>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian for Friday 6 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/events/274360378/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 12:49, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time works for me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 нояб. 2020 г., в 12:40, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am up for the call. I will try to explain my reasoning
>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> greater
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and will be glad to hear the concerns. Will this Friday,
>>>>>>>>> Nov
>>>>>>>>>>> 6th,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 10:09, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, should we have a call for this topic?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 18:53, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not intend to rewrite everything from scratch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be moved to
>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, thank you for the explanation, this addresses
>>> all
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:43 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Igniters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * AFAIU, we need a new repo if we want to apply
>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull requests,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise I see no difference for myself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E.g. make static analysis (do we have?), compile,
>>>>>>>>> styles,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> javadoc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checks mandatory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that relaxed requirements here will lead to
>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>> product
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Agree with Pavel, we should 'keep' integrations
>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> During active development tests will be broken most
>> of
>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>>>>>> so,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd port them e.g. suite-by-suite once we will have a
>>>>>>>>>> stable
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> featured
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment to run them and of course make test's
>> code
>>>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad/non-relevant ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * I like bottom-up approach.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With it we could make a better framework. I mean
>> clear
>>>>>>>>>>>> component
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lifecycle,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> component wiring mechanics, general methods to
>> approach
>>>>>>>>>> core
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as exchange/communication
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to avoid code mess like we have in ExchangeFuture
>> with
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> callbacks for each component, interfaces like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PartitionsExchangeAware,
>> IgniteChangeGlobalStateSupport
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> start/stop/onKernalStart/onPluginStart/onActivate/onDisconnected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and so on in various unexpected places.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hope, we will be able to port most of the good code
>> to
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay, Pavel,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback! First of all, I wanted to
>>>>>>>>> stress
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intend to rewrite everything from scratch (I never
>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phrase).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are significant parts of code that would be moved
>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> minimal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modifications. Second, I never said that we will get
>>>>>>>>> rid
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. Every single test from Ignite 2.x should
>> be
>>>>>>>>>> moved
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is that for some parts of the code a clean
>>>>>>>>>>> bottom-up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation will be cheaper in many ways. Let me
>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concrete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I think no one can object that we need a cleanly
>>>>>>>>>>> separated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> layer for Ignite. There is a very raw draft IEP for
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, I think we also can agree that we need a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> split-brain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resistant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol for caches. There is also an
>> IEP
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the changes is a good fit for 2.x because they are
>>>>>>>>>> likely
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking changes in the persistence layer,
>>>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, these components are now tightly
>>>>>>>>> coupled,
>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two changes can be implemented in parallel and
>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily. So what we will end up with is having to
>>>>>>>>>> implement
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially, fixing all existing tests twice, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throwing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away half of the work done because the other part of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-implemented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Similar example goes with getting rid of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteInternalFuture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replacing it with CompletableFuture, and any other
>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> touches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asynchronous part of the code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Third, I do not see how this choice affects the UX
>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience must be fixed in the IEP regardless of
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> development
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the fact that we have gaps in this area in
>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>> 2.x
>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confirms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavel, agree that a repo/branch is a technicality, I
>>>>>>>>>> guess
>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reformulate,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my point is that we might agree to have a single
>>>>>>>>>>> development
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with 'disassembled' end-to-end functionality for
>> some
>>>>>>>>>>> period
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed up development, and re-assemble the core
>>> features
>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submodules tested independently.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
>>>>>>>>>> support,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not very specific. In the end, resources are
>>>>>>>>>>> limited
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be able to drive both tracks simultaneously,
>>>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of features having been implemented for Ignite 3.0.
>> If
>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some major changes that we want to do in Ignite 2.x
>>>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort into 3.0 - let's discuss them. I am just not
>>>>>>>>> aware
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I am eager to move forward with Ignite 3.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with
>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> it’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These changes will be covered by end-to-end tests
>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> migrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0, so I see no issues here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, Anton & Nikolay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not have an estimate for this simply because
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community-driven and it depends on the number of
>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>> willing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribute. With the current pace, I would hope to
>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>> RC
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be ready by the end of 2021. My gut feeling is
>> that
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incremental changes, we will not be able to
>> implement
>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>> half
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wishlist by that time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt that releasing several major releases with
>>>>>>>>>> breaking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make Ignite users happy either because each upgrade
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money, so the fewer major versions we release, the
>>>>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include all breaking changes in one release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll be now quiet for a while, let's see what other
>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Rewriting from scratch is never a good idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't want to follow the path of Netscape and
>> lose
>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the time we have a working 3.0 [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Not sure about new repo - seems like some pain
>> and
>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>> gain,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem with a branch?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. We should keep existing integration tests when
>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have accumulated a lot of edge case knowledge
>> over
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> years,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not a good idea to send all of that down the
>>>>>>>>>> drain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, integration tests are slow, but they are the
>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>> valuable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can move more stuff into nightly runs
>> and
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fast
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic suite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, you are much more familiar with the Ignite
>>>>>>>>> core
>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of us,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please explain in more detail which
>>> particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mandates this "start from scratch" approach?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it really not possible at all to follow a less
>>>>>>>>>> radical
>>>>>>>>>>>> way?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:25 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that «rewriting from scratch» approach
>> has a
>>>>>>>>>> high
>>>>>>>>>>>>> risk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features unusable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the time Ignite2 was started no-one wants to do
>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>> UX
>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, it happen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can avoid it with the Ignite3 and
>>>>>>>>> successors
>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step by step without keeping backward
>> compatibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With the step by step approach, we can focus on
>> each
>>>>>>>>>>>>> component
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separately.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement
>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.x?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
>>>>>>>>>>> support,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> it’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 14:09, Anton Vinogradov <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have any estimates of how fast we'll be
>> able
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> gain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production-ready
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI 3.0 in case of a "new repo" choice?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:01 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement
>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.x?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we commence working on Ignite 3.0, we should
>>>>>>>>>> gradually
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cease
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Ignite 2.x to mere bugfixes because such
>>>>>>>>> parallel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwhelming regardless of how we choose to
>>>>>>>>> proceed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:38, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be clear:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest creating a new repository for
>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean branch, but a new repo looks nicer to me)
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TeamCity project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for new Team City project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for new branch for Ignite3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 for new repo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:35, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it will hurt our project more than
>> help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Developing new features for 2 separate
>> branches
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APIs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and internal structure is overwhelming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should relax a bit requirements for
>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should move step by step and make
>>>>>>>>> Ignite3
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration than Ignite4 with new
>> transactions,
>>>>>>>>>> etc?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:14, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to pitch a rather radical idea
>>>>>>>>> regarding
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development which has occurred to me some
>> time
>>>>>>>>>> ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We already have several IEPs targeted to
>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to the codebase (the change in
>>>>>>>>> replication
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protocol
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactions, change in binary format,
>> updated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metastorage,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planned significant changes in public APIs:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements in cache APIs, SQL APIs,
>>>>>>>>> transaction
>>>>>>>>>>> mode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wishlist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of changes for Ignite 3.0 is huge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I was wondering whether it makes sense to
>>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase, or start with a new baseline and
>> move
>>>>>>>>>> old
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not require significant rework. Personally, I
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option for the following reasons:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We have a chance to shift the development
>>>>>>>>>> paradigm
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce the practice of true unit-tests. In
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baseline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning there will be no ability to run an
>>>>>>>>>>>> end-to-end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be forced to write unit-tests. So far,
>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>>> practice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement because of tight coupling between
>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to instantiate components without an instance
>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KernalContext.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, we should be able to thoroughly test
>>>>>>>>>>> internal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primitives,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol (without actual
>>>>>>>>>> communication),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metastorage contracts, persistence layer,
>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will significantly reduce the
>> development
>>>>>>>>>> cycle
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (right now the RunAll takes two hours of
>>>>>>>>>>> astronomical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> empty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TC;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the new approach developer will be able to
>>>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>>>>>> ALL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of minutes)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We can get rid of TC bot and enforce green
>> TC
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results with GitHub PRs (the same way Travis
>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check). We should restrict PR merge without a
>>> TC
>>>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will still have to re-write all tests,
>> but
>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> once.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modify the old codebase, we would need to
>>> modify
>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major change (public API change,
>> configuration
>>>>>>>>>>> change)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will have fewer conflicts when working
>>>>>>>>>>> together.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot imagine how one would merge two
>> changes
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteFuture and changes in replication
>>>>>>>>> protocol,
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Technically, I would suggest creating a new
>>>>>>>>>>> repository
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a new clean branch, but a new repo
>>>>>>>>> looks
>>>>>>>>>>>> nicer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3.0 TeamCity project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While it may seem quite radical, I do believe
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us more benefits than trying to make such
>> major
>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. If needed, let's schedule a discord
>>>>>>>>> chat
>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>> Alexei Scherbakov
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy
>>>
>>

[Sergey Chugunov]

Igniters,

I agree that create or not create is not a question, rephrasing
Shakespeare.

My main point is that developing new features on top of old 2.x-style
architecture is a bad idea. We will write the code and spend some time
stabilizing it (which is expected and fine). But then, when we finally
decide to fix our architecture and pay our (already huge) technical debt,
we will have to rewrite this code again and spend time stabilizing it again.

Creating new components on top of 2.x (which is actually 1.x, nothing
fundamentally new was introduced in terms of architecture) is equal to
wasting time now and creating more worthless work for the future.

Earlier I suggested to rank all new features according to their criticality
and amount of breaking changes and shape 3.0 scope based on this analysis.
Let's get back to this idea and prepare a scope based on publicly shared
arguments.

One more thing I would add here. Our users are smart people and make
decisions about upgrading or not upgrading to a new version based on
cost/value balance. Incremental approach keeps cost (public API breaking
changes) high but brings questionable amounts of value with each iteration.
If we add more valuable features to 3.0 and force users to pay the cost
only once they will be happier than if we split really needed changes to
several major releases and send our users to hell of endless rewriting
their codebases. In the latter case we'll see users to be much more
reluctant to upgrade to newer versions.

Hope this makes sense.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 2:24 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > Let's indeed focus on Sergey's suggestions on the design->development
> approach.
>
> +1
>
> >   - API & configuration cleanup
> >   - New management tool
> >   - Schema-first approach
> >   - New replication infrastructure
>
> +1.
>
> > 16 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:40, Alexey Goncharuk <[hidden email]>
> написал(а):
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > I think we are overly driven away by the phrase 'new repo' rather than
> the
> > essence of my suggestion. We can keep developing in the same repo, we can
> > even keep developing in the master branch. My point is that Ignite 3.0
> is a
> > chance to move on with the architecture, so if we really want to make
> > architectural improvements, we should not strive for incremental changes
> > for *some parts of the code*.
> >
> > Maxim,
> >
> > To comment on your examples: I think that the huge effort that is
> currently
> > required to make any significant change in Ignite is the perfect example
> of
> > how we lack structure in the codebase. Yes, theoretically we can
> introduce
> > incremental changes in the code that will improve the structure, but my
> > question is: we did not do it before, what will enforce us to make these
> > changes now? With the current approach, adding a new feature increases
> the
> > test time non-linearly because without proper decoupling you have to test
> > all possible combinations of features together. We can move faster than
> > that.
> >
> > I also do not agree that we should reduce the scope of Ignite 3.0 that
> > much. I do not see how the schema-first approach can be properly and
> > reliably implemented without a reliable HA metastorage, which in turn
> > requires a reliable replication protocol to be implemented. Besides, if a
> > number of people want to work on some Ignite feature, why should they
> wait
> > because not all community members have time to review the changes?
> >
> > Let's indeed focus on Sergey's suggestions on the design->development
> > approach. I back both Nikolay's and Maxim's scope, but I think we should
> > unite them, not intersect, and the minimal list of changes to be included
> > to Ignite 3.0 is:
> >
> >   - API & configuration cleanup
> >   - New management tool
> >   - Schema-first approach
> >   - New replication infrastructure
> >
> > Any smaller subset of changes will leave Ignite 3.0 in a transient state
> > with people being too afraid to move to it because there are more major
> > breaking changes scheduled.
> >
> > пт, 13 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:28, Alexey Zinoviev <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >> I'm -1 for creating a new repo.
> >> Also I support Maxim's plan for 3.0
> >>
> >> пт, 13 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:50, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
> >>
> >>> Val,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Why *creating a new repo* is the main point we faced with? Would it be
> >>> better to discuss the components design approach and scope management
> >>> first suggested by Sergey Chugunov? I doubt that new repo will solve
> >>> move us forward.
> >>>
> >>> Currently, I'm -1 to create a new repo with the inputs above.
> >>>
> >>> In addition to Nikolay's answer I see the following drawbacks of
> >>> creating new repo:
> >>> - we have very few positive examples of finalizing really huge
> >>> improvements to *production-ready* states the others remains
> >>> incomplete (MVCC, Calcite, Zookeeper, Tracing, Thread per Partition,
> >>> etc)
> >>> - AFAIK, the Native Persistence took a very long period of
> >>> stabilization even after it has been developed (we must take it into
> >>> account for developing new features like IEP-61)
> >>> - feature development for a long period of time (like 3.0) without any
> >>> releases will lead to all these changes became obsolete at the moment
> >>> of release (AFAIK the 2.8 which released a year ago still has no big
> >>> deployments)
> >>> - human resources -- some of the Igniters may lose their interest for
> >>> 3.0 during development, some of them may switch to different projects,
> >>> etc.
> >>> - do we all estimating the scope of 3.0 correct? The 2.8 release took
> 1.5
> >>> years.
> >>>
> >>> Have I missed something?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I suggest the following plan:
> >>>
> >>> - initiate 3.0 development in the master branch (after 2.10 release
> >>> change version to 3.0-SNAPSHOT instead of 2.11-SNAPSHOT)
> >>> - cleanup and collapse all the current APIs (see To Be Removed List
> >>> For Discussion on Apache Ignite 3.0 Wishlist)
> >>> - reduce the scope for 3.0 even more. I suggest focusing on two
> >>> things: Calcite + Schema-first approach
> >>> - create feature branches for proposed IEPs (for 3.0 only)
> >>> - create the release road map (allocate e.g. IEP-61 to 4.0 etc.)
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 14:03, Ivan Daschinsky <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> b. Implement IEP-61 - Common Replication Infrastructure
> >>>> I suppose, that this is the main cause of the current discussion.
> >>>> I hardly believe that this activity can be done without at least
> >>> creating a
> >>>> completely new branch.
> >>>>
> >>>> пт, 13 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:12, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> My suggestion:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. Reduce Ignite3 scope to the following:
> >>>>>        a. Delete all deprecated API and support of obsolete internal
> >>>>> protocols.
> >>>>>        b. Implement IEP-61 - Common Replication Infrastructure
> >>>>>        c. Implement new Ignite management tool ignitectl as
> >> suggested
> >>>>> during Ignite3 discussion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. Implement and release following improvements like transactions,
> >>> Calcite
> >>>>> based SQL, etc in the ongoing releases - Ignite 4, 5, 6
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My concern against separate Ignite 3 repo is the following:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. We spread community to the two very separated part - Ignite3
> >>> developers
> >>>>> and Ignite2 maintainers.  believe it’s bad for our community.
> >>>>>        That can lead to the situation when we don’t fix critical or
> >>>>> blocker issueds «because they will not exists in Ignite3»
> >>>>>        That will lead to the solutions never reviewed or reviewed
> >>> poorly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. It seems for me that current scope of Ignite3 is too big to be
> >>>>> implemented in any reasonable time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 13 нояб. 2020 г., в 10:57, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]
> >>>
> >>>>> написал(а):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello, Valentin.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nikolay, Maxim, are you OK with this route?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -1 to have another repo for Ignite3 development.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 13 нояб. 2020 г., в 03:04, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>>>> [hidden email]> написал(а):
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Folks,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We already have multiple IEPs for Ignite 3.0, and as far as I
> >> know,
> >>>>> there are contributors that would like to work on them (or probably
> >>> already
> >>>>> started). That said, we should make a decision as soon as possible.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> At this point, it doesn't seem that there are any strong
> >> objections
> >>> to
> >>>>> the technical side of things. So I would suggest the following:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1. Proceed with Alexey's approach to the development process, as
> >> it
> >>>>> seems to be the best (in my opinion - the only) way to address all
> >> the
> >>>>> technical concerns and issues expressed in the thread. We'll start by
> >>>>> creating a new repo and a new TC project.
> >>>>>>> 2. Start a separate discussion around transparency. If there are
> >> any
> >>>>> changes we need to make to our contributor guidelines, I am happy to
> >>> talk
> >>>>> them through, but I don't think it's reasonable to delay feature
> >>>>> development because of this. In the short term, I will make sure that
> >>>>> everything that happens within the new repo is as open to the
> >>> community as
> >>>>> possible.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nikolay, Maxim, are you OK with this route?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 4:55 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Maxim,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2.x and 3.x will have to coexist for some time - I don't see how
> >> we
> >>> can
> >>>>> avoid this considering the set of proposed changes. That said, we
> >>>>> effectively will need to have two "masters" - one for each major
> >>> version.
> >>>>> Master for 3.x can technically be a branch in the existing repo, but
> >>> having
> >>>>> a separate repo seems cleaner, simply because it will not be a
> >>> "branch" in
> >>>>> the traditional sense.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Note that the new repo will still be under the Apache org, with
> >> the
> >>>>> same set of committers, managed by the community, etc. All the
> >>> development
> >>>>> happening for 3.0 must follow the rules that we currently have (if
> >>>>> anything, it's an opportunity to improve those rules).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As I said during the call on Friday, I strongly believe that if
> >>> there
> >>>>> is a transparency issue, it will exist regardless of the approach we
> >>> choose
> >>>>> for 3.0. If community members develop without IEPs or public
> >>> discussions,
> >>>>> this will happen for both 2.x and 3.x unless we address this
> >>> separately. I
> >>>>> don't see how this is related to Alexey's suggestion, which targets
> >>>>> *technical* issues with the product more than anything else. This a
> >>> way to
> >>>>> achieve better modularity, introduce better coverage with unit tests,
> >>>>> reduce conflicts during development, etc.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Coming back to transparency, let's identify the issues and fix
> >>> them. It
> >>>>> probably makes sense to have a separate discussion on this topic.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:05 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Sergey,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Your summary makes sense to me.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> However, how we come up from *Development transparency* to
> >> *create a
> >>>>>>> separate public repository dedicated for 3.0*? For me *development
> >>>>>>> transparency* is about making changes in the master branch. These
> >>>>>>> changes will definitely be seen by all the Ignite developers.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A dedicated public repository is technically public and visible
> >> for
> >>>>>>> everyone, but it allows development without IEPs, without public
> >>>>>>> discussion (since all the code changes are not related to the
> >> master
> >>>>>>> branch) it also allows a large number of assumptions and
> >> deviations
> >>>>>>> (like code-style violations). It also not about *development
> >>>>>>> transparency* since developers which are working on 3.0 is only a
> >>>>>>> subset of all Ignite developers which may continue working on 2.x.
> >>> For
> >>>>>>> me, this would be a huge step backwards.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ignite veterans should remember how long the branch stabilization
> >>> took
> >>>>>>> for the 2.x version with the PDS.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think each breaking change should be passed through the master
> >>> branch.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 22:18, Alexei Scherbakov
> >>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Makes sense to me.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> вт, 10 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:47, Sergey Chugunov <
> >>>>> [hidden email]>:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I thought over Friday meeting ideas and concerns and summarized
> >>> them
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>> these three points:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  1. *Components design unification approach.* New proposed
> >>> components
> >>>>>>>>>  will be developed by different contributors, but they need to
> >> be
> >>>>> unified
> >>>>>>>>>  and should integrate with each other easily. To ensure that I
> >>>>> suggest
> >>>>>>>>>  calling an architecture group that will create design
> >> guidelines
> >>>>> for all
> >>>>>>>>>  components and high-level overview of overall architecture.
> >> How
> >>>>> code is
> >>>>>>>>>  split into components, what are component boundaries, how
> >>> component
> >>>>>>>>>  lifecycle works and what are its interfaces - all these and
> >>> other
> >>>>>>>>> questions
> >>>>>>>>>  should be covered.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  2. *Scope management.* Apache 3.0 should be implemented
> >> within a
> >>>>>>>>>  reasonable time, so we need some procedure to decide whether a
> >>>>>>>>> particular
> >>>>>>>>>  feature should be dropped from the scope of 3.0 and postponed
> >>> to 3.1
> >>>>>>>>>  release. To do so I suggest to range all features by two
> >>> parameters:
> >>>>>>>>>  criticality for 3.0 and amount of breaking changes. 3.0 scope
> >>> should
> >>>>>>>>>  include features of high criticality AND features with a big
> >>> amount
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>  breaking changes. All other features can be made optional.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  3. *Development transparency.* Development of all components
> >>> should
> >>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>  made as transparent for everyone as possible. Any contributor
> >>>>> should be
> >>>>>>>>>  able to look over any component at any stage of development.
> >> To
> >>>>> achieve
> >>>>>>>>>  this I suggest to create a separate public repository
> >> dedicated
> >>> for
> >>>>> 3.0
> >>>>>>>>>  development. It will make the code available for everyone but
> >>> when
> >>>>>>>>>  development of 3.0 is done we won't loose any stars of our
> >>> current
> >>>>>>>>>  repository as we merge dev repo into main one and drop dev.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Do these ideas make sense to you? Are there any concerns not
> >>> covered
> >>>>> by
> >>>>>>>>> these suggestions?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:36 PM Kseniya Romanova <
> >>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Here are the slides from Alexey Goncharuk. Let's think this
> >> over
> >>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> continue on Monday:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://go.gridgain.com/rs/491-TWR-806/images/Ignite_3_Plans_and_development_process.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> чт, 5 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:13, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Should we perform cleanup work before (r)evolutional changes?
> >>>>>>>>>>> My huge proposal is to get rid of things which we don't need
> >>> anyway
> >>>>>>>>>>> - local caches,
> >>>>>>>>>>> - strange tx modes,
> >>>>>>>>>>> - code overcomplexity because of RollingUpgrade feature never
> >>>>> attended
> >>>>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>>>> AI,
> >>>>>>>>>>> - etc,
> >>>>>>>>>>> before choosing the way.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:31 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ksenia, thanks for scheduling this on such short notice!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> As for the original topic, I do support Alexey's idea. We're
> >>> not
> >>>>>>>>> going
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> rewrite anything from scratch, as most of the components are
> >>> going
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> moved as-is or with minimal modifications. However, the
> >> changes
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>> proposed imply serious rework of the core parts of the code,
> >>> which
> >>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> properly decoupled from each other and from other parts. This
> >>> makes
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> incremental approach borderline impossible. Developing in a
> >> new
> >>>>> repo,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> however, addresses this concern. As a bonus, we can also
> >>> refactor
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> code,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> introduce better decoupling, get rid of kernel context, and
> >>> develop
> >>>>>>>>>> unit
> >>>>>>>>>>>> tests (finally!).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Basically, this proposal only affects the *process*, not the
> >>> set of
> >>>>>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>> we had discussed before. Ignite 3.0 is our unique chance to
> >>> make
> >>>>>>>>> things
> >>>>>>>>>>>> right.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:06 AM Kseniya Romanova <
> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavel, all the interesting points will be anyway published
> >>> here in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> English
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (as the principal "if it's not on devlist it doesn't
> >>> happened" is
> >>>>>>>>>> still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant). This is just a quick call for a group of
> >>> developers.
> >>>>>>>>> Later
> >>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can do a separate presentation of idea and discussion in
> >>> English
> >>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>> did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> for the Ignite 3.0 draft of changes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kseniya,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for scheduling this call.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think we can switch to English if non-Russian
> >> speaking
> >>>>>>>>>>> community
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> members decide to join?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:32 PM Kseniya Romanova <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's do this community discussion open. Here's the link
> >> on
> >>>>>>>>> zoom
> >>>>>>>>>>> call
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian for Friday 6 PM:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/events/274360378/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 12:49, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time works for me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 нояб. 2020 г., в 12:40, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am up for the call. I will try to explain my reasoning
> >>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> greater
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detail
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and will be glad to hear the concerns. Will this Friday,
> >>>>>>>>> Nov
> >>>>>>>>>>> 6th,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 10:09, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, should we have a call for this topic?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 18:53, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not intend to rewrite everything from scratch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be moved to
> >>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>> 3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, thank you for the explanation, this addresses
> >>> all
> >>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>> my
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:43 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Igniters.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * AFAIU, we need a new repo if we want to apply
> >>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull requests,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise I see no difference for myself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E.g. make static analysis (do we have?), compile,
> >>>>>>>>> styles,
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> javadoc
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checks mandatory.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that relaxed requirements here will lead to
> >> bad
> >>>>>>>>>>>> product
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quality.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Agree with Pavel, we should 'keep' integrations
> >> tests
> >>>>>>>>>>>> somehow.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> During active development tests will be broken most
> >> of
> >>>>>>>>>> time,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> so,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd port them e.g. suite-by-suite once we will have a
> >>>>>>>>>> stable
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> featured
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment to run them and of course make test's
> >> code
> >>>>>>>>>> clear
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad/non-relevant ones.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * I like bottom-up approach.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With it we could make a better framework. I mean
> >> clear
> >>>>>>>>>>>> component
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lifecycle,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> component wiring mechanics, general methods to
> >> approach
> >>>>>>>>>> core
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as exchange/communication
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to avoid code mess like we have in ExchangeFuture
> >> with
> >>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> callbacks for each component, interfaces like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PartitionsExchangeAware,
> >> IgniteChangeGlobalStateSupport
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pack of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> start/stop/onKernalStart/onPluginStart/onActivate/onDisconnected
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and so on in various unexpected places.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hope, we will be able to port most of the good code
> >> to
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay, Pavel,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback! First of all, I wanted to
> >>>>>>>>> stress
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intend to rewrite everything from scratch (I never
> >>> used
> >>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phrase).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are significant parts of code that would be moved
> >> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> minimal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modifications. Second, I never said that we will get
> >>>>>>>>> rid
> >>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> old
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. Every single test from Ignite 2.x should
> >> be
> >>>>>>>>>> moved
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is that for some parts of the code a clean
> >>>>>>>>>>> bottom-up
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation will be cheaper in many ways. Let me
> >>>>>>>>> give
> >>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> few
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concrete
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I think no one can object that we need a cleanly
> >>>>>>>>>>> separated
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> layer for Ignite. There is a very raw draft IEP for
> >>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> already.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, I think we also can agree that we need a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> split-brain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resistant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol for caches. There is also an
> >> IEP
> >>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the changes is a good fit for 2.x because they are
> >>>>>>>>>> likely
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking changes in the persistence layer,
> >>>>>>>>> configuration
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, these components are now tightly
> >>>>>>>>> coupled,
> >>>>>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two changes can be implemented in parallel and
> >>>>>>>>>> then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> merged
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily. So what we will end up with is having to
> >>>>>>>>>> implement
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially, fixing all existing tests twice, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throwing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away half of the work done because the other part of
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> change
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-implemented
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Similar example goes with getting rid of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteInternalFuture
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replacing it with CompletableFuture, and any other
> >>>>>>>>>> change
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> touches
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asynchronous part of the code.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Third, I do not see how this choice affects the UX
> >> of
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ignite.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience must be fixed in the IEP regardless of
> >> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> development
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the fact that we have gaps in this area in
> >> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>> 2.x
> >>>>>>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confirms
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavel, agree that a repo/branch is a technicality, I
> >>>>>>>>>> guess
> >>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reformulate,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my point is that we might agree to have a single
> >>>>>>>>>>> development
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> master
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with 'disassembled' end-to-end functionality for
> >> some
> >>>>>>>>>>> period
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed up development, and re-assemble the core
> >>> features
> >>>>>>>>>>> after
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submodules tested independently.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> >>>>>>>>>> support,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not very specific. In the end, resources are
> >>>>>>>>>>> limited
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be able to drive both tracks simultaneously,
> >>>>>>>>>> especially
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> after a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of features having been implemented for Ignite 3.0.
> >> If
> >>>>>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some major changes that we want to do in Ignite 2.x
> >>>>>>>>>> instead
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort into 3.0 - let's discuss them. I am just not
> >>>>>>>>> aware
> >>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> any,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I am eager to move forward with Ignite 3.0.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
> >>>>>>>>> without
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backward
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with
> >>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>> it’s
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These changes will be covered by end-to-end tests
> >> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> migrated
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0, so I see no issues here.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, Anton & Nikolay
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not have an estimate for this simply because
> >> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> activity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community-driven and it depends on the number of
> >>> people
> >>>>>>>>>>>> willing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribute. With the current pace, I would hope to
> >>> have
> >>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>> RC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be ready by the end of 2021. My gut feeling is
> >> that
> >>>>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> moving
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incremental changes, we will not be able to
> >> implement
> >>>>>>>>>> even
> >>>>>>>>>>>> half
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wishlist by that time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt that releasing several major releases with
> >>>>>>>>>> breaking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make Ignite users happy either because each upgrade
> >>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>> cost
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money, so the fewer major versions we release, the
> >>>>>>>>>> better.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thus
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> my
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wish
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include all breaking changes in one release.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll be now quiet for a while, let's see what other
> >>>>>>>>>>> community
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Rewriting from scratch is never a good idea.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't want to follow the path of Netscape and
> >> lose
> >>>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>> our
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the time we have a working 3.0 [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Not sure about new repo - seems like some pain
> >> and
> >>>>>>>>> no
> >>>>>>>>>>>> gain,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem with a branch?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. We should keep existing integration tests when
> >>>>>>>>>>> possible.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have accumulated a lot of edge case knowledge
> >> over
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> years,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not a good idea to send all of that down the
> >>>>>>>>>> drain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, integration tests are slow, but they are the
> >>> most
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> valuable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can move more stuff into nightly runs
> >> and
> >>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fast
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic suite.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, you are much more familiar with the Ignite
> >>>>>>>>> core
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of us,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please explain in more detail which
> >>> particular
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> feature,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mandates this "start from scratch" approach?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it really not possible at all to follow a less
> >>>>>>>>>> radical
> >>>>>>>>>>>> way?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:25 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that «rewriting from scratch» approach
> >> has a
> >>>>>>>>>> high
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> risk
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features unusable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the time Ignite2 was started no-one wants to do
> >>>>>>>>> bad
> >>>>>>>>>> UX
> >>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, it happen.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can avoid it with the Ignite3 and
> >>>>>>>>> successors
> >>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step by step without keeping backward
> >> compatibility
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With the step by step approach, we can focus on
> >> each
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> component
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separately.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement
> >> for
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.x?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
> >>>>>>>>>>> support,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
> >>>>>>>>>> without
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backward
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with
> >>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>> it’s
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 14:09, Anton Vinogradov <
> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have any estimates of how fast we'll be
> >> able
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> gain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production-ready
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI 3.0 in case of a "new repo" choice?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:01 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement
> >> for
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.x?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we commence working on Ignite 3.0, we should
> >>>>>>>>>> gradually
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cease
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Ignite 2.x to mere bugfixes because such
> >>>>>>>>> parallel
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwhelming regardless of how we choose to
> >>>>>>>>> proceed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:38, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be clear:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest creating a new repository for
> >>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean branch, but a new repo looks nicer to me)
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TeamCity project.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for new Team City project.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for new branch for Ignite3.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 for new repo.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:35, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it will hurt our project more than
> >> help.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Developing new features for 2 separate
> >> branches
> >>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APIs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and internal structure is overwhelming
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should relax a bit requirements for
> >>>>>>>>>> Ignite3?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should move step by step and make
> >>>>>>>>> Ignite3
> >>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration than Ignite4 with new
> >> transactions,
> >>>>>>>>>> etc?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:14, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to pitch a rather radical idea
> >>>>>>>>> regarding
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development which has occurred to me some
> >> time
> >>>>>>>>>> ago.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We already have several IEPs targeted to
> >> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imply
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to the codebase (the change in
> >>>>>>>>> replication
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> protocol
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactions, change in binary format,
> >> updated
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> metastorage,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planned significant changes in public APIs:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements in cache APIs, SQL APIs,
> >>>>>>>>> transaction
> >>>>>>>>>>> mode
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wishlist
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of changes for Ignite 3.0 is huge.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I was wondering whether it makes sense to
> >>>>>>>>> try
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase, or start with a new baseline and
> >> move
> >>>>>>>>>> old
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not require significant rework. Personally, I
> >>>>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>>>> go
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option for the following reasons:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We have a chance to shift the development
> >>>>>>>>>> paradigm
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce the practice of true unit-tests. In
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baseline
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning there will be no ability to run an
> >>>>>>>>>>>> end-to-end
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be forced to write unit-tests. So far,
> >>> such
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> practice
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement because of tight coupling between
> >>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inability
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to instantiate components without an instance
> >>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KernalContext.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, we should be able to thoroughly test
> >>>>>>>>>>> internal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primitives,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol (without actual
> >>>>>>>>>> communication),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metastorage contracts, persistence layer,
> >> etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will significantly reduce the
> >> development
> >>>>>>>>>> cycle
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (right now the RunAll takes two hours of
> >>>>>>>>>>> astronomical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> empty
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TC;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the new approach developer will be able to
> >>>>>>>>> run
> >>>>>>>>>>> ALL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of minutes)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We can get rid of TC bot and enforce green
> >> TC
> >>>>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrating
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results with GitHub PRs (the same way Travis
> >> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> currently
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrated
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check). We should restrict PR merge without a
> >>> TC
> >>>>>>>>>>> check
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will still have to re-write all tests,
> >> but
> >>>>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> once.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modify the old codebase, we would need to
> >>> modify
> >>>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major change (public API change,
> >> configuration
> >>>>>>>>>>> change)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will have fewer conflicts when working
> >>>>>>>>>>> together.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot imagine how one would merge two
> >> changes
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rid
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteFuture and changes in replication
> >>>>>>>>> protocol,
> >>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Technically, I would suggest creating a new
> >>>>>>>>>>> repository
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a new clean branch, but a new repo
> >>>>>>>>> looks
> >>>>>>>>>>>> nicer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3.0 TeamCity project.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While it may seem quite radical, I do believe
> >>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us more benefits than trying to make such
> >> major
> >>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. If needed, let's schedule a discord
> >>>>>>>>> chat
> >>>>>>>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>> Alexei Scherbakov
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy
> >>>
> >>
>
>
>

[Nikolay Izhikov-2]

Sergey.

> pay our (already huge) technical debt,

Can you, please, make your statement more specific?
What specific points of technical debt do we have?

I think we should write it down and solve the issues step by step.

> 16 нояб. 2020 г., в 14:28, Sergey Chugunov <[hidden email]> написал(а):
>
> Igniters,
>
> I agree that create or not create is not a question, rephrasing
> Shakespeare.
>
> My main point is that developing new features on top of old 2.x-style
> architecture is a bad idea. We will write the code and spend some time
> stabilizing it (which is expected and fine). But then, when we finally
> decide to fix our architecture and pay our (already huge) technical debt,
> we will have to rewrite this code again and spend time stabilizing it again.
>
> Creating new components on top of 2.x (which is actually 1.x, nothing
> fundamentally new was introduced in terms of architecture) is equal to
> wasting time now and creating more worthless work for the future.
>
> Earlier I suggested to rank all new features according to their criticality
> and amount of breaking changes and shape 3.0 scope based on this analysis.
> Let's get back to this idea and prepare a scope based on publicly shared
> arguments.
>
> One more thing I would add here. Our users are smart people and make
> decisions about upgrading or not upgrading to a new version based on
> cost/value balance. Incremental approach keeps cost (public API breaking
> changes) high but brings questionable amounts of value with each iteration.
> If we add more valuable features to 3.0 and force users to pay the cost
> only once they will be happier than if we split really needed changes to
> several major releases and send our users to hell of endless rewriting
> their codebases. In the latter case we'll see users to be much more
> reluctant to upgrade to newer versions.
>
> Hope this makes sense.
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 2:24 PM Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>> Let's indeed focus on Sergey's suggestions on the design->development
>> approach.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>>  - API & configuration cleanup
>>>  - New management tool
>>>  - Schema-first approach
>>>  - New replication infrastructure
>>
>> +1.
>>
>>> 16 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:40, Alexey Goncharuk <[hidden email]>
>> написал(а):
>>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> I think we are overly driven away by the phrase 'new repo' rather than
>> the
>>> essence of my suggestion. We can keep developing in the same repo, we can
>>> even keep developing in the master branch. My point is that Ignite 3.0
>> is a
>>> chance to move on with the architecture, so if we really want to make
>>> architectural improvements, we should not strive for incremental changes
>>> for *some parts of the code*.
>>>
>>> Maxim,
>>>
>>> To comment on your examples: I think that the huge effort that is
>> currently
>>> required to make any significant change in Ignite is the perfect example
>> of
>>> how we lack structure in the codebase. Yes, theoretically we can
>> introduce
>>> incremental changes in the code that will improve the structure, but my
>>> question is: we did not do it before, what will enforce us to make these
>>> changes now? With the current approach, adding a new feature increases
>> the
>>> test time non-linearly because without proper decoupling you have to test
>>> all possible combinations of features together. We can move faster than
>>> that.
>>>
>>> I also do not agree that we should reduce the scope of Ignite 3.0 that
>>> much. I do not see how the schema-first approach can be properly and
>>> reliably implemented without a reliable HA metastorage, which in turn
>>> requires a reliable replication protocol to be implemented. Besides, if a
>>> number of people want to work on some Ignite feature, why should they
>> wait
>>> because not all community members have time to review the changes?
>>>
>>> Let's indeed focus on Sergey's suggestions on the design->development
>>> approach. I back both Nikolay's and Maxim's scope, but I think we should
>>> unite them, not intersect, and the minimal list of changes to be included
>>> to Ignite 3.0 is:
>>>
>>>  - API & configuration cleanup
>>>  - New management tool
>>>  - Schema-first approach
>>>  - New replication infrastructure
>>>
>>> Any smaller subset of changes will leave Ignite 3.0 in a transient state
>>> with people being too afraid to move to it because there are more major
>>> breaking changes scheduled.
>>>
>>> пт, 13 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:28, Alexey Zinoviev <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>> I'm -1 for creating a new repo.
>>>> Also I support Maxim's plan for 3.0
>>>>
>>>> пт, 13 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:50, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]>:
>>>>
>>>>> Val,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why *creating a new repo* is the main point we faced with? Would it be
>>>>> better to discuss the components design approach and scope management
>>>>> first suggested by Sergey Chugunov? I doubt that new repo will solve
>>>>> move us forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently, I'm -1 to create a new repo with the inputs above.
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition to Nikolay's answer I see the following drawbacks of
>>>>> creating new repo:
>>>>> - we have very few positive examples of finalizing really huge
>>>>> improvements to *production-ready* states the others remains
>>>>> incomplete (MVCC, Calcite, Zookeeper, Tracing, Thread per Partition,
>>>>> etc)
>>>>> - AFAIK, the Native Persistence took a very long period of
>>>>> stabilization even after it has been developed (we must take it into
>>>>> account for developing new features like IEP-61)
>>>>> - feature development for a long period of time (like 3.0) without any
>>>>> releases will lead to all these changes became obsolete at the moment
>>>>> of release (AFAIK the 2.8 which released a year ago still has no big
>>>>> deployments)
>>>>> - human resources -- some of the Igniters may lose their interest for
>>>>> 3.0 during development, some of them may switch to different projects,
>>>>> etc.
>>>>> - do we all estimating the scope of 3.0 correct? The 2.8 release took
>> 1.5
>>>>> years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have I missed something?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest the following plan:
>>>>>
>>>>> - initiate 3.0 development in the master branch (after 2.10 release
>>>>> change version to 3.0-SNAPSHOT instead of 2.11-SNAPSHOT)
>>>>> - cleanup and collapse all the current APIs (see To Be Removed List
>>>>> For Discussion on Apache Ignite 3.0 Wishlist)
>>>>> - reduce the scope for 3.0 even more. I suggest focusing on two
>>>>> things: Calcite + Schema-first approach
>>>>> - create feature branches for proposed IEPs (for 3.0 only)
>>>>> - create the release road map (allocate e.g. IEP-61 to 4.0 etc.)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 14:03, Ivan Daschinsky <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> b. Implement IEP-61 - Common Replication Infrastructure
>>>>>> I suppose, that this is the main cause of the current discussion.
>>>>>> I hardly believe that this activity can be done without at least
>>>>> creating a
>>>>>> completely new branch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> пт, 13 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:12, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My suggestion:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Reduce Ignite3 scope to the following:
>>>>>>>       a. Delete all deprecated API and support of obsolete internal
>>>>>>> protocols.
>>>>>>>       b. Implement IEP-61 - Common Replication Infrastructure
>>>>>>>       c. Implement new Ignite management tool ignitectl as
>>>> suggested
>>>>>>> during Ignite3 discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Implement and release following improvements like transactions,
>>>>> Calcite
>>>>>>> based SQL, etc in the ongoing releases - Ignite 4, 5, 6
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My concern against separate Ignite 3 repo is the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. We spread community to the two very separated part - Ignite3
>>>>> developers
>>>>>>> and Ignite2 maintainers.  believe it’s bad for our community.
>>>>>>>       That can lead to the situation when we don’t fix critical or
>>>>>>> blocker issueds «because they will not exists in Ignite3»
>>>>>>>       That will lead to the solutions never reviewed or reviewed
>>>>> poorly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. It seems for me that current scope of Ignite3 is too big to be
>>>>>>> implemented in any reasonable time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 13 нояб. 2020 г., в 10:57, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello, Valentin.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nikolay, Maxim, are you OK with this route?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -1 to have another repo for Ignite3 development.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 13 нояб. 2020 г., в 03:04, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We already have multiple IEPs for Ignite 3.0, and as far as I
>>>> know,
>>>>>>> there are contributors that would like to work on them (or probably
>>>>> already
>>>>>>> started). That said, we should make a decision as soon as possible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At this point, it doesn't seem that there are any strong
>>>> objections
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the technical side of things. So I would suggest the following:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Proceed with Alexey's approach to the development process, as
>>>> it
>>>>>>> seems to be the best (in my opinion - the only) way to address all
>>>> the
>>>>>>> technical concerns and issues expressed in the thread. We'll start by
>>>>>>> creating a new repo and a new TC project.
>>>>>>>>> 2. Start a separate discussion around transparency. If there are
>>>> any
>>>>>>> changes we need to make to our contributor guidelines, I am happy to
>>>>> talk
>>>>>>> them through, but I don't think it's reasonable to delay feature
>>>>>>> development because of this. In the short term, I will make sure that
>>>>>>> everything that happens within the new repo is as open to the
>>>>> community as
>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nikolay, Maxim, are you OK with this route?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 4:55 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2.x and 3.x will have to coexist for some time - I don't see how
>>>> we
>>>>> can
>>>>>>> avoid this considering the set of proposed changes. That said, we
>>>>>>> effectively will need to have two "masters" - one for each major
>>>>> version.
>>>>>>> Master for 3.x can technically be a branch in the existing repo, but
>>>>> having
>>>>>>> a separate repo seems cleaner, simply because it will not be a
>>>>> "branch" in
>>>>>>> the traditional sense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note that the new repo will still be under the Apache org, with
>>>> the
>>>>>>> same set of committers, managed by the community, etc. All the
>>>>> development
>>>>>>> happening for 3.0 must follow the rules that we currently have (if
>>>>>>> anything, it's an opportunity to improve those rules).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I said during the call on Friday, I strongly believe that if
>>>>> there
>>>>>>> is a transparency issue, it will exist regardless of the approach we
>>>>> choose
>>>>>>> for 3.0. If community members develop without IEPs or public
>>>>> discussions,
>>>>>>> this will happen for both 2.x and 3.x unless we address this
>>>>> separately. I
>>>>>>> don't see how this is related to Alexey's suggestion, which targets
>>>>>>> *technical* issues with the product more than anything else. This a
>>>>> way to
>>>>>>> achieve better modularity, introduce better coverage with unit tests,
>>>>>>> reduce conflicts during development, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Coming back to transparency, let's identify the issues and fix
>>>>> them. It
>>>>>>> probably makes sense to have a separate discussion on this topic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 1:05 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Sergey,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your summary makes sense to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, how we come up from *Development transparency* to
>>>> *create a
>>>>>>>>> separate public repository dedicated for 3.0*? For me *development
>>>>>>>>> transparency* is about making changes in the master branch. These
>>>>>>>>> changes will definitely be seen by all the Ignite developers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A dedicated public repository is technically public and visible
>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> everyone, but it allows development without IEPs, without public
>>>>>>>>> discussion (since all the code changes are not related to the
>>>> master
>>>>>>>>> branch) it also allows a large number of assumptions and
>>>> deviations
>>>>>>>>> (like code-style violations). It also not about *development
>>>>>>>>> transparency* since developers which are working on 3.0 is only a
>>>>>>>>> subset of all Ignite developers which may continue working on 2.x.
>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>> me, this would be a huge step backwards.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ignite veterans should remember how long the branch stabilization
>>>>> took
>>>>>>>>> for the 2.x version with the PDS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think each breaking change should be passed through the master
>>>>> branch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 22:18, Alexei Scherbakov
>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Makes sense to me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> вт, 10 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:47, Sergey Chugunov <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I thought over Friday meeting ideas and concerns and summarized
>>>>> them
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> these three points:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. *Components design unification approach.* New proposed
>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>> will be developed by different contributors, but they need to
>>>> be
>>>>>>> unified
>>>>>>>>>>> and should integrate with each other easily. To ensure that I
>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>> calling an architecture group that will create design
>>>> guidelines
>>>>>>> for all
>>>>>>>>>>> components and high-level overview of overall architecture.
>>>> How
>>>>>>> code is
>>>>>>>>>>> split into components, what are component boundaries, how
>>>>> component
>>>>>>>>>>> lifecycle works and what are its interfaces - all these and
>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>> questions
>>>>>>>>>>> should be covered.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. *Scope management.* Apache 3.0 should be implemented
>>>> within a
>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable time, so we need some procedure to decide whether a
>>>>>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>>>>> feature should be dropped from the scope of 3.0 and postponed
>>>>> to 3.1
>>>>>>>>>>> release. To do so I suggest to range all features by two
>>>>> parameters:
>>>>>>>>>>> criticality for 3.0 and amount of breaking changes. 3.0 scope
>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> include features of high criticality AND features with a big
>>>>> amount
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> breaking changes. All other features can be made optional.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 3. *Development transparency.* Development of all components
>>>>> should
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> made as transparent for everyone as possible. Any contributor
>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>>> able to look over any component at any stage of development.
>>>> To
>>>>>>> achieve
>>>>>>>>>>> this I suggest to create a separate public repository
>>>> dedicated
>>>>> for
>>>>>>> 3.0
>>>>>>>>>>> development. It will make the code available for everyone but
>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>> development of 3.0 is done we won't loose any stars of our
>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>> repository as we merge dev repo into main one and drop dev.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do these ideas make sense to you? Are there any concerns not
>>>>> covered
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> these suggestions?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:36 PM Kseniya Romanova <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are the slides from Alexey Goncharuk. Let's think this
>>>> over
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> continue on Monday:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>> https://go.gridgain.com/rs/491-TWR-806/images/Ignite_3_Plans_and_development_process.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> чт, 5 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:13, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we perform cleanup work before (r)evolutional changes?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My huge proposal is to get rid of things which we don't need
>>>>> anyway
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - local caches,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - strange tx modes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - code overcomplexity because of RollingUpgrade feature never
>>>>>>> attended
>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - etc,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> before choosing the way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:31 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ksenia, thanks for scheduling this on such short notice!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the original topic, I do support Alexey's idea. We're
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rewrite anything from scratch, as most of the components are
>>>>> going
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moved as-is or with minimal modifications. However, the
>>>> changes
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed imply serious rework of the core parts of the code,
>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly decoupled from each other and from other parts. This
>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incremental approach borderline impossible. Developing in a
>>>> new
>>>>>>> repo,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however, addresses this concern. As a bonus, we can also
>>>>> refactor
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> code,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce better decoupling, get rid of kernel context, and
>>>>> develop
>>>>>>>>>>>> unit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests (finally!).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Basically, this proposal only affects the *process*, not the
>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we had discussed before. Ignite 3.0 is our unique chance to
>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:06 AM Kseniya Romanova <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavel, all the interesting points will be anyway published
>>>>> here in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (as the principal "if it's not on devlist it doesn't
>>>>> happened" is
>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant). This is just a quick call for a group of
>>>>> developers.
>>>>>>>>>>> Later
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do a separate presentation of idea and discussion in
>>>>> English
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the Ignite 3.0 draft of changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kseniya,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for scheduling this call.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think we can switch to English if non-Russian
>>>> speaking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members decide to join?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:32 PM Kseniya Romanova <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's do this community discussion open. Here's the link
>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> zoom
>>>>>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian for Friday 6 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/events/274360378/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 12:49, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time works for me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 нояб. 2020 г., в 12:40, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am up for the call. I will try to explain my reasoning
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greater
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and will be glad to hear the concerns. Will this Friday,
>>>>>>>>>>> Nov
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6th,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 10:09, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, should we have a call for this topic?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 18:53, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not intend to rewrite everything from scratch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be moved to
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, thank you for the explanation, this addresses
>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:43 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Igniters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * AFAIU, we need a new repo if we want to apply
>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull requests,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise I see no difference for myself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E.g. make static analysis (do we have?), compile,
>>>>>>>>>>> styles,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> javadoc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checks mandatory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that relaxed requirements here will lead to
>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Agree with Pavel, we should 'keep' integrations
>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> During active development tests will be broken most
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd port them e.g. suite-by-suite once we will have a
>>>>>>>>>>>> stable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> featured
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment to run them and of course make test's
>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad/non-relevant ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * I like bottom-up approach.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With it we could make a better framework. I mean
>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> component
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lifecycle,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> component wiring mechanics, general methods to
>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>> core
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as exchange/communication
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to avoid code mess like we have in ExchangeFuture
>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> callbacks for each component, interfaces like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PartitionsExchangeAware,
>>>> IgniteChangeGlobalStateSupport
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> start/stop/onKernalStart/onPluginStart/onActivate/onDisconnected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and so on in various unexpected places.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hope, we will be able to port most of the good code
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay, Pavel,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback! First of all, I wanted to
>>>>>>>>>>> stress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intend to rewrite everything from scratch (I never
>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phrase).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are significant parts of code that would be moved
>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minimal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modifications. Second, I never said that we will get
>>>>>>>>>>> rid
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. Every single test from Ignite 2.x should
>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> moved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is that for some parts of the code a clean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bottom-up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation will be cheaper in many ways. Let me
>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concrete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I think no one can object that we need a cleanly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> separated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> layer for Ignite. There is a very raw draft IEP for
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, I think we also can agree that we need a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> split-brain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resistant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol for caches. There is also an
>>>> IEP
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the changes is a good fit for 2.x because they are
>>>>>>>>>>>> likely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking changes in the persistence layer,
>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, these components are now tightly
>>>>>>>>>>> coupled,
>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two changes can be implemented in parallel and
>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily. So what we will end up with is having to
>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequentially, fixing all existing tests twice, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throwing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away half of the work done because the other part of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-implemented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Similar example goes with getting rid of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteInternalFuture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replacing it with CompletableFuture, and any other
>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> touches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asynchronous part of the code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Third, I do not see how this choice affects the UX
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience must be fixed in the IEP regardless of
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the fact that we have gaps in this area in
>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>> 2.x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confirms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavel, agree that a repo/branch is a technicality, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> guess
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reformulate,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my point is that we might agree to have a single
>>>>>>>>>>>>> development
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with 'disassembled' end-to-end functionality for
>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> period
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed up development, and re-assemble the core
>>>>> features
>>>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submodules tested independently.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
>>>>>>>>>>>> support,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not very specific. In the end, resources are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be able to drive both tracks simultaneously,
>>>>>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of features having been implemented for Ignite 3.0.
>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some major changes that we want to do in Ignite 2.x
>>>>>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort into 3.0 - let's discuss them. I am just not
>>>>>>>>>>> aware
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I am eager to move forward with Ignite 3.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with
>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These changes will be covered by end-to-end tests
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0, so I see no issues here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, Anton & Nikolay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not have an estimate for this simply because
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community-driven and it depends on the number of
>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribute. With the current pace, I would hope to
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be ready by the end of 2021. My gut feeling is
>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incremental changes, we will not be able to
>>>> implement
>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> half
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wishlist by that time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt that releasing several major releases with
>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make Ignite users happy either because each upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> money, so the fewer major versions we release, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include all breaking changes in one release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll be now quiet for a while, let's see what other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:52, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Rewriting from scratch is never a good idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't want to follow the path of Netscape and
>>>> lose
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the time we have a working 3.0 [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Not sure about new repo - seems like some pain
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gain,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem with a branch?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. We should keep existing integration tests when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have accumulated a lot of edge case knowledge
>>>> over
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not a good idea to send all of that down the
>>>>>>>>>>>> drain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, integration tests are slow, but they are the
>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valuable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can move more stuff into nightly runs
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fast
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic suite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey, you are much more familiar with the Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>> core
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of us,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you please explain in more detail which
>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mandates this "start from scratch" approach?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it really not possible at all to follow a less
>>>>>>>>>>>> radical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:25 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that «rewriting from scratch» approach
>>>> has a
>>>>>>>>>>>> high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> risk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features unusable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the time Ignite2 was started no-one wants to do
>>>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>> UX
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, it happen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can avoid it with the Ignite3 and
>>>>>>>>>>> successors
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step by step without keeping backward
>>>> compatibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With the step by step approach, we can focus on
>>>> each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> component
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separately.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement
>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.x?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many features that have to evolve.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snapshots, rebalance, tooling, tracing, zookeeper
>>>>>>>>>>>>> support,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have bugs and issues that can be fixed in 2.x
>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have many users who are happy with the 2.x with
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 14:09, Anton Vinogradov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have any estimates of how fast we'll be
>>>> able
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production-ready
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI 3.0 in case of a "new repo" choice?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:01 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What new features are we planning to implement
>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.x?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we commence working on Ignite 3.0, we should
>>>>>>>>>>>> gradually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cease
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Ignite 2.x to mere bugfixes because such
>>>>>>>>>>> parallel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwhelming regardless of how we choose to
>>>>>>>>>>> proceed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 2 нояб. 2020 г. в 13:38, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be clear:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest creating a new repository for
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean branch, but a new repo looks nicer to me)
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TeamCity project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for new Team City project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for new branch for Ignite3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 for new repo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:35, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Alexey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it will hurt our project more than
>>>> help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Developing new features for 2 separate
>>>> branches
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APIs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and internal structure is overwhelming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should relax a bit requirements for
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should move step by step and make
>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration than Ignite4 with new
>>>> transactions,
>>>>>>>>>>>> etc?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:14, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to pitch a rather radical idea
>>>>>>>>>>> regarding
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development which has occurred to me some
>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>> ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We already have several IEPs targeted to
>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to the codebase (the change in
>>>>>>>>>>> replication
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protocol
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactions, change in binary format,
>>>> updated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metastorage,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planned significant changes in public APIs:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements in cache APIs, SQL APIs,
>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wishlist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of changes for Ignite 3.0 is huge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I was wondering whether it makes sense to
>>>>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase, or start with a new baseline and
>>>> move
>>>>>>>>>>>> old
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not require significant rework. Personally, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option for the following reasons:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We have a chance to shift the development
>>>>>>>>>>>> paradigm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce the practice of true unit-tests. In
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baseline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning there will be no ability to run an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end-to-end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be forced to write unit-tests. So far,
>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement because of tight coupling between
>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to instantiate components without an instance
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KernalContext.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, we should be able to thoroughly test
>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primitives,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replication protocol (without actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> communication),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metastorage contracts, persistence layer,
>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will significantly reduce the
>>>> development
>>>>>>>>>>>> cycle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (right now the RunAll takes two hours of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> astronomical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> empty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TC;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the new approach developer will be able to
>>>>>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter of minutes)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We can get rid of TC bot and enforce green
>>>> TC
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results with GitHub PRs (the same way Travis
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check). We should restrict PR merge without a
>>>>> TC
>>>>>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will still have to re-write all tests,
>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modify the old codebase, we would need to
>>>>> modify
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major change (public API change,
>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>> change)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We will have fewer conflicts when working
>>>>>>>>>>>>> together.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot imagine how one would merge two
>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteFuture and changes in replication
>>>>>>>>>>> protocol,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Technically, I would suggest creating a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> repository
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (perhaps, a new clean branch, but a new repo
>>>>>>>>>>> looks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nicer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3.0 TeamCity project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While it may seem quite radical, I do believe
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us more benefits than trying to make such
>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. If needed, let's schedule a discord
>>>>>>>>>>> chat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Alexei Scherbakov
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>

[Alexey Goncharuk]

Good,

I think we have an intermediate agreement on the scope and significance of
the changes we want to make. I suggest creating separate discussion streams
and calls for each of the suggested topics so that:

   - It is clear for the community what is the motivation of the stream
   (this includes both functional targets and technical debt issues pointed
   out by Sergey)
   - Who is planning to take an active part in each of the streams (i.e.
   the 'design committee', as Sergey suggested)
   - What are the intermediate and final goals for each of the streams
   - What are the cross-stream interactions and how we integrate them
   - How each of the streams will be integrated with the current codebase
   based on the above (here is where we will see whether drop-in or
   incremental approaches make more sense)

[Valentin Kulichenko]

Thanks, guys. It looks like we are much closer to the consensus now. I
totally on board with the plan, but I would also like to address the
short-term needs. As I've already mentioned earlier, there are several
active IEPs, but we still don't have even a preliminary technical process
for working on these IEPs. I believe this might be frustrating for the
folks who would like to commit code.

The scope we agreed on is quite big, and it will surely take significant
time to implement all the changes and stabilize them. Therefore, it's clear
to me that we will have to maintain 2.x and 3.x in parallel for quite some
time - this needs to be addressed somehow. I'm convinced that having a
separate repo is the ONLY way to do that, and so far, I haven't heard any
clear alternatives or reasons why we shouldn't do this.

That said, I'm inclined to proceed with this in the next few days - I will
create a repo and describe the process (which we, of course, can discuss
and modify going forward). Let's, at the very least, try and see where it
leads us.

If someone has any concrete alternative options on how to we can maintain
two major versions in parallel, let's have another voice discussion this
Friday. If we do the meeting, we should set it up with a clear goal to make
a decision. Please let me know if there is interest in this.

-Val

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 6:31 AM Alexey Goncharuk <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Good,
>
> I think we have an intermediate agreement on the scope and significance of
> the changes we want to make. I suggest creating separate discussion streams
> and calls for each of the suggested topics so that:
>
>    - It is clear for the community what is the motivation of the stream
>    (this includes both functional targets and technical debt issues pointed
>    out by Sergey)
>    - Who is planning to take an active part in each of the streams (i.e.
>    the 'design committee', as Sergey suggested)
>    - What are the intermediate and final goals for each of the streams
>    - What are the cross-stream interactions and how we integrate them
>    - How each of the streams will be integrated with the current codebase
>    based on the above (here is where we will see whether drop-in or
>    incremental approaches make more sense)
>

[Valentin Kulichenko]

Folks,

I went ahead and created the repository [1]. I also configured a TeamCity
project [2] that runs all available JUnit tests on every PR creation or
update. It also sends the status update to GitHub so that it's reflected in
the PR itself so that we can do merges directly from GitHub. Basic steps to
make a change are described on the Wiki page [3].

Let me know if you have any questions.

[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3
[2] https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project/ignite3
[3]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+3.0#ApacheIgnite3.0-DevelopmentProcess

-Val

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 4:24 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks, guys. It looks like we are much closer to the consensus now. I
> totally on board with the plan, but I would also like to address the
> short-term needs. As I've already mentioned earlier, there are several
> active IEPs, but we still don't have even a preliminary technical process
> for working on these IEPs. I believe this might be frustrating for the
> folks who would like to commit code.
>
> The scope we agreed on is quite big, and it will surely take significant
> time to implement all the changes and stabilize them. Therefore, it's clear
> to me that we will have to maintain 2.x and 3.x in parallel for quite some
> time - this needs to be addressed somehow. I'm convinced that having a
> separate repo is the ONLY way to do that, and so far, I haven't heard any
> clear alternatives or reasons why we shouldn't do this.
>
> That said, I'm inclined to proceed with this in the next few days - I will
> create a repo and describe the process (which we, of course, can discuss
> and modify going forward). Let's, at the very least, try and see where it
> leads us.
>
> If someone has any concrete alternative options on how to we can maintain
> two major versions in parallel, let's have another voice discussion this
> Friday. If we do the meeting, we should set it up with a clear goal to make
> a decision. Please let me know if there is interest in this.
>
> -Val
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 6:31 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Good,
>>
>> I think we have an intermediate agreement on the scope and significance of
>> the changes we want to make. I suggest creating separate discussion
>> streams
>> and calls for each of the suggested topics so that:
>>
>>    - It is clear for the community what is the motivation of the stream
>>    (this includes both functional targets and technical debt issues
>> pointed
>>    out by Sergey)
>>    - Who is planning to take an active part in each of the streams (i.e.
>>    the 'design committee', as Sergey suggested)
>>    - What are the intermediate and final goals for each of the streams
>>    - What are the cross-stream interactions and how we integrate them
>>    - How each of the streams will be integrated with the current codebase
>>    based on the above (here is where we will see whether drop-in or
>>    incremental approaches make more sense)
>>
>

[Andrew Mashenkov]

Let's add maven plugins  for sanity checks at the early stage.
I've created a ticket for this [1].

Also, I've found initial pom.xml has a target version Java 8.
Do we intend to move to Java 11 (or may be next LTS) and drop Java 8 in
Ignite 3.0?

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13751

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:40 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I went ahead and created the repository [1]. I also configured a TeamCity
> project [2] that runs all available JUnit tests on every PR creation or
> update. It also sends the status update to GitHub so that it's reflected in
> the PR itself so that we can do merges directly from GitHub. Basic steps to
> make a change are described on the Wiki page [3].
>
> Let me know if you have any questions.
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3
> [2] https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project/ignite3
> [3]
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+3.0#ApacheIgnite3.0-DevelopmentProcess
>
> -Val
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 4:24 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, guys. It looks like we are much closer to the consensus now. I
> > totally on board with the plan, but I would also like to address the
> > short-term needs. As I've already mentioned earlier, there are several
> > active IEPs, but we still don't have even a preliminary technical process
> > for working on these IEPs. I believe this might be frustrating for the
> > folks who would like to commit code.
> >
> > The scope we agreed on is quite big, and it will surely take significant
> > time to implement all the changes and stabilize them. Therefore, it's
> clear
> > to me that we will have to maintain 2.x and 3.x in parallel for quite
> some
> > time - this needs to be addressed somehow. I'm convinced that having a
> > separate repo is the ONLY way to do that, and so far, I haven't heard any
> > clear alternatives or reasons why we shouldn't do this.
> >
> > That said, I'm inclined to proceed with this in the next few days - I
> will
> > create a repo and describe the process (which we, of course, can discuss
> > and modify going forward). Let's, at the very least, try and see where it
> > leads us.
> >
> > If someone has any concrete alternative options on how to we can maintain
> > two major versions in parallel, let's have another voice discussion this
> > Friday. If we do the meeting, we should set it up with a clear goal to
> make
> > a decision. Please let me know if there is interest in this.
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 6:31 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Good,
> >>
> >> I think we have an intermediate agreement on the scope and significance
> of
> >> the changes we want to make. I suggest creating separate discussion
> >> streams
> >> and calls for each of the suggested topics so that:
> >>
> >>    - It is clear for the community what is the motivation of the stream
> >>    (this includes both functional targets and technical debt issues
> >> pointed
> >>    out by Sergey)
> >>    - Who is planning to take an active part in each of the streams (i.e.
> >>    the 'design committee', as Sergey suggested)
> >>    - What are the intermediate and final goals for each of the streams
> >>    - What are the cross-stream interactions and how we integrate them
> >>    - How each of the streams will be integrated with the current
> codebase
> >>    based on the above (here is where we will see whether drop-in or
> >>    incremental approaches make more sense)
> >>
> >
>

--
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

[Alexey Zinoviev]

Java 15 is better, VarHandles, ForeignMemory access and so on.

In both cases, I support the Java version 11 and higher for the development!

вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:21, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]>:

> Let's add maven plugins  for sanity checks at the early stage.
> I've created a ticket for this [1].
>
> Also, I've found initial pom.xml has a target version Java 8.
> Do we intend to move to Java 11 (or may be next LTS) and drop Java 8 in
> Ignite 3.0?
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13751
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:40 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > I went ahead and created the repository [1]. I also configured a TeamCity
> > project [2] that runs all available JUnit tests on every PR creation or
> > update. It also sends the status update to GitHub so that it's reflected
> in
> > the PR itself so that we can do merges directly from GitHub. Basic steps
> to
> > make a change are described on the Wiki page [3].
> >
> > Let me know if you have any questions.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3
> > [2] https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project/ignite3
> > [3]
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+3.0#ApacheIgnite3.0-DevelopmentProcess
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 4:24 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks, guys. It looks like we are much closer to the consensus now. I
> > > totally on board with the plan, but I would also like to address the
> > > short-term needs. As I've already mentioned earlier, there are several
> > > active IEPs, but we still don't have even a preliminary technical
> process
> > > for working on these IEPs. I believe this might be frustrating for the
> > > folks who would like to commit code.
> > >
> > > The scope we agreed on is quite big, and it will surely take
> significant
> > > time to implement all the changes and stabilize them. Therefore, it's
> > clear
> > > to me that we will have to maintain 2.x and 3.x in parallel for quite
> > some
> > > time - this needs to be addressed somehow. I'm convinced that having a
> > > separate repo is the ONLY way to do that, and so far, I haven't heard
> any
> > > clear alternatives or reasons why we shouldn't do this.
> > >
> > > That said, I'm inclined to proceed with this in the next few days - I
> > will
> > > create a repo and describe the process (which we, of course, can
> discuss
> > > and modify going forward). Let's, at the very least, try and see where
> it
> > > leads us.
> > >
> > > If someone has any concrete alternative options on how to we can
> maintain
> > > two major versions in parallel, let's have another voice discussion
> this
> > > Friday. If we do the meeting, we should set it up with a clear goal to
> > make
> > > a decision. Please let me know if there is interest in this.
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 6:31 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Good,
> > >>
> > >> I think we have an intermediate agreement on the scope and
> significance
> > of
> > >> the changes we want to make. I suggest creating separate discussion
> > >> streams
> > >> and calls for each of the suggested topics so that:
> > >>
> > >>    - It is clear for the community what is the motivation of the
> stream
> > >>    (this includes both functional targets and technical debt issues
> > >> pointed
> > >>    out by Sergey)
> > >>    - Who is planning to take an active part in each of the streams
> (i.e.
> > >>    the 'design committee', as Sergey suggested)
> > >>    - What are the intermediate and final goals for each of the streams
> > >>    - What are the cross-stream interactions and how we integrate them
> > >>    - How each of the streams will be integrated with the current
> > codebase
> > >>    based on the above (here is where we will see whether drop-in or
> > >>    incremental approaches make more sense)
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>