[VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.5.0-EA

[yzhdanov]

Dear Sirs!

We have uploaded release candidate to
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/1.5.0-EA-rc2/

This is very important release containing initial versions of Ignite.NET
and Ignite C++ and many other important features and improvements.
We want community to test this EA in order to gather feedback and move on
to releasing final version.

Tag name is
ignite-1.5.0-EA-rc2

1.5.0 changes:
* Ignite.NET: Initial Release.
* Ignite C++: Initial Release.
* Massive performance improvements for cache operations and SQL.
* Added new binary cache object marshalling implementation.
* Added IgniteSemaphore data structure.
* Added MQTT Streamer.
* Fixed failover for continuous queries.
* Fixed compilation and runtime errors under OpenJDK and IBM JDK.
* Fixed Integer.size limitation for cache.
* Fixed and improved cache types configuration.
* Fixed cache rebalancing.
* Many stability and fault-tolerance fixes.

Complete list of closed issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20IGNITE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.5%20AND%20status%20%3D%20closed

DEVNOTES
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=blob_plain;f=DEVNOTES.txt;hb=refs/tags/ignite-1.5.0-EA-rc2

RELEASENOTES
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=blob_plain;f=RELEASE_NOTES.txt;hb=refs/tags/ignite-1.5.0-EA-rc2

Please start voting.

+1 - to accept Apache Ignite 1.5.0-EA
0 - don't care either way
-1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite 1.5.0-EA (explain why)

This vote will go for 72 hours.

--Yakov

[Raul Kripalani]

Yakov,

We were having an active discussion in the dev mailing list about the name
of this version.

The discussion had not concluded. It is not respectful for you to override
the disagreement and take a decision.

I would like to hear the opinion of other members outside of GG about the
naming.

What's the urgency with this release? Has this community communicated a
timeline to users@?

I'm tempted to -1 this release just due to the manners.

Regards,
Raúl.
Dear Sirs!

We have uploaded release candidate to
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/1.5.0-EA-rc2/

This is very important release containing initial versions of Ignite.NET
and Ignite C++ and many other important features and improvements.
We want community to test this EA in order to gather feedback and move on
to releasing final version.

Tag name is
ignite-1.5.0-EA-rc2

1.5.0 changes:
* Ignite.NET: Initial Release.
* Ignite C++: Initial Release.
* Massive performance improvements for cache operations and SQL.
* Added new binary cache object marshalling implementation.
* Added IgniteSemaphore data structure.
* Added MQTT Streamer.
* Fixed failover for continuous queries.
* Fixed compilation and runtime errors under OpenJDK and IBM JDK.
* Fixed Integer.size limitation for cache.
* Fixed and improved cache types configuration.
* Fixed cache rebalancing.
* Many stability and fault-tolerance fixes.

Complete list of closed issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20IGNITE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.5%20AND%20status%20%3D%20closed

DEVNOTES
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=blob_plain;f=DEVNOTES.txt;hb=refs/tags/ignite-1.5.0-EA-rc2

RELEASENOTES
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=blob_plain;f=RELEASE_NOTES.txt;hb=refs/tags/ignite-1.5.0-EA-rc2

Please start voting.

+1 - to accept Apache Ignite 1.5.0-EA
0 - don't care either way
-1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite 1.5.0-EA (explain why)

This vote will go for 72 hours.

--Yakov

[Andrey Kornev]

Raul,

I'm not associated with GG and my opinion is that Yakov's naming is good enough.

And since you've asked for opinions, it's also my opinion that the discussion about the naming was a non-consequential bikeshedding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law_of_triviality) and potentially causing unnecessary delays of the release which is already long overdue.

Regards
Andrey

> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 22:59:44 +0000
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.5.0-EA
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
>
> Yakov,
>
> We were having an active discussion in the dev mailing list about the name
> of this version.
>
> The discussion had not concluded. It is not respectful for you to override
> the disagreement and take a decision.
>
> I would like to hear the opinion of other members outside of GG about the
> naming.
>
> What's the urgency with this release? Has this community communicated a
> timeline to users@?
>
> I'm tempted to -1 this release just due to the manners.
>
> Regards,
> Raúl.
> Dear Sirs!
>
> We have uploaded release candidate to
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/1.5.0-EA-rc2/
>
> This is very important release containing initial versions of Ignite.NET
> and Ignite C++ and many other important features and improvements.
> We want community to test this EA in order to gather feedback and move on
> to releasing final version.
>
> Tag name is
> ignite-1.5.0-EA-rc2
>
> 1.5.0 changes:
> * Ignite.NET: Initial Release.
> * Ignite C++: Initial Release.
> * Massive performance improvements for cache operations and SQL.
> * Added new binary cache object marshalling implementation.
> * Added IgniteSemaphore data structure.
> * Added MQTT Streamer.
> * Fixed failover for continuous queries.
> * Fixed compilation and runtime errors under OpenJDK and IBM JDK.
> * Fixed Integer.size limitation for cache.
> * Fixed and improved cache types configuration.
> * Fixed cache rebalancing.
> * Many stability and fault-tolerance fixes.
>
> Complete list of closed issues:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20IGNITE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.5%20AND%20status%20%3D%20closed
>
> DEVNOTES
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=blob_plain;f=DEVNOTES.txt;hb=refs/tags/ignite-1.5.0-EA-rc2
>
> RELEASENOTES
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=blob_plain;f=RELEASE_NOTES.txt;hb=refs/tags/ignite-1.5.0-EA-rc2
>
> Please start voting.
>
> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite 1.5.0-EA
> 0 - don't care either way
> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite 1.5.0-EA (explain why)
>
> This vote will go for 72 hours.
>
> --Yakov

     

[Raul Kripalani]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Andrey Kornev <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> And since you've asked for opinions, it's also my opinion that the
> discussion about the naming was a non-consequential bikeshedding (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law_of_triviality) and
> potentially causing unnecessary delays of the release which is already long
> overdue.
>

I respect your opinion, obviously. But something being late is not an
excuse for taking liberties with something so important and prominent as
release naming policy and the lifetime of temporary binaries in external
and public repositories. Those are the meeting points between our
development process and the software discovery process by prospective
users.

Discussing names of private variables or an extra parenthesis in docs...
Those are actual "bikeshedding". So in a way, I agree with you: we must
focus on what's important.

[dsetrakyan]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Raul Kripalani <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Andrey Kornev <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > And since you've asked for opinions, it's also my opinion that the
> > discussion about the naming was a non-consequential bikeshedding (
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law_of_triviality) and
> > potentially causing unnecessary delays of the release which is already
> long
> > overdue.
> >
>
> I respect your opinion, obviously. But something being late is not an
> excuse for taking liberties with something so important and prominent as
> release naming policy and the lifetime of temporary binaries in external
> and public repositories. Those are the meeting points between our
> development process and the software discovery process by prospective
> users.

Raul, this is not the 1st Ignite release. Why don’t we follow our existing
procedures until we make and document new decisions? Judging by the way
this discussion is going, it could take a week for the community to reach a
consensus, which is hardly a reason to delay the release altogether.

I agree with you about the importance of release naming and the lifetime of
temporary binaries, but I suggest we start a new thread where we can
discuss these issues.


> Discussing names of private variables or an extra parenthesis in docs...
> Those are actual "bikeshedding". So in a way, I agree with you: we must
> focus on what's important.
>

You and I disagree here. Code consistency is hardly “bikeshedding”, and the
community is making an effort to enforce it. We should not fight it, but
rather embrace it, and make Ignite code clearly stand out among other
Apache projects. Having said that, I would be against holding back a
release because some variable was named wrong.

[yzhdanov]

Guys, let's close this vote thread. I think we will resubmit another build
today evening. I will also send out my vision on EA process and I ask
everyone to respond on that thread.

--Yakov

[dsetrakyan]

Yakov, can you please send [CANCEL][VOTE] email?

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Guys, let's close this vote thread. I think we will resubmit another build
> today evening. I will also send out my vision on EA process and I ask
> everyone to respond on that thread.
>
> --Yakov
>

[Raul Kripalani-2]

Thank you, Yakov! It's appreciated.
On 1 Dec 2015 07:42, "Yakov Zhdanov" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Guys, let's close this vote thread. I think we will resubmit another build
> today evening. I will also send out my vision on EA process and I ask
> everyone to respond on that thread.
>
> --Yakov
>