ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexey Zinoviev <zaleslaw....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Ignite 3.0 development approach
Date Tue, 24 Nov 2020 12:38:05 GMT
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 <andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>:

> 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 <
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> 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 <
> > 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)
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

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