ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Valentin Kulichenko <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Ignite 3.0 development approach
Date Tue, 24 Nov 2020 02:40:24 GMT
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 <
valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> 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 <
> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> 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)
>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message