ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)
Date Fri, 19 May 2017 20:12:56 GMT
Hi Raul, thanks for jumping in! I agree on all points.

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 4:08 AM, Raúl Kripalani <raul.asf@evosent.com>
wrote:

> Nice! Sorry for being out of touch lately. I'm glad to see GridGain donate
> additional components to the Ignite ecosystem.
>
> IIUC:
>
>    1) GG implemented PDS for a commercial customer, but it is now being
> donated to the community => I assume GG has obtained clearance from that
> customer first.
>
>    2) It appears that PDS is a module of Ignite, but changes are required
> to the core in the existing codebase for the integration to work =>
> Correct?
>
>    3) We use SemVer [1], and there have been talks about potentially
> merging this into 2.1, rather than 3.x. => Is it safe to assume that
> integrating the PDS will not lead to any *breaking changes* in APIs?
>
>    4) I believe the VOTE to accept the donation should be *decoupled* from
> any VOTEs –or decisions– on *what* to do with the donation and *when* to do
> it. Although it's sane and healthy to discuss the future of the donation
> inside its new home, ultimately there should be no time pressure by the
> donor with regards to the ultimate destination of their donation.
>
>    5) Normally the code belonging to the donation is first put in
> "quarantine" inside the codebase, i.e. a separate repo or a separate
> branch, where the community can review, test, peruse, integrate, etc. In
> this sense, I agree with Dmitriy. The natural fit seems to be a branch in
> this case.
>
> If we just focus on whether to accept the donation and place the code into
> a separate branch –without pressure to release for 2.1, just a vision to do
> so– would there be consensus?
>
> [1] http://semver.org/
>
> Cheers,
> Raúl.
>
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Cos, Roman,
> >
> > This has nothing to do with any deadlines, but rather with an easier and
> > more efficient process.
> >
> > I am not sure how keeping the code in a separate code base is better for
> > the community than keeping it in a separate Apache Ignite branch, where
> we
> > can integrate it into Ignite CI process, run tests, stabilize, all while
> > the community is getting familiar with it. Keeping the code base outside
> of
> > Apache Ignite GIT makes it much more difficult to integrate or stabilize.
> > Moreover, if the code is in a separate Ignite branch, we can get the
> > community help to work on it and discuss issues on the dev list.
> >
> > I would propose to move the code to a separate branch in Apache Ignite
> > right now, especially given that the paperwork has already been taken
> care
> > of. We can still decide within the Ignite community not to accept it down
> > the road, in which case we can toss away the branch.
> >
> > Would you agree with this approach?
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <rvs@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Well, here's the issue with "simple move from private repo". This is
> a
> > > > huge chunk of code. And while employees of Gridgain are quite
> familiar
> > > > with it (or so I presume), the rest of the community is not. I, for
> > > > one, don't consider that the fact it has been tested and integrated
> > > > with AI 2.0 and, effectively, outside of AI 2.0 is a reasonable "go"
> > > > criteria.
> > >
> > > Cos is absolutely correct here. Strong +1 to the above.
> > >
> > > > I am sorry that I have to repeat this after 1.5 years after project's
> > > > graduation from the Incubator. However, I, personally and otherwise,
> > > > feel like a community process of creating software should be thought
> > > > through in the spirit of the community, rather than "release dates"
> or
> > > > "feature richness". Which means that the community has to be on board
> > > > with the decisions like this. And "on board" doesn't mean "majority
> of
> > > > the votes" as we, fortunately, aren't playing in democracy @apache.
> > > > Release dates are relevant to an entity, building and selling
> > > > products. in Apache we're are working on projects, and while releases
> > > > are important here, they convey a very different meaning.
> > >
> > > Which brings me to a related question: what exactly needs to be
> released
> > > on this aggressive schedule and who is a beneficiary of this release?
> > >
> > > What I am trying to say is this: if GirdGain has a product delivery
> > > deadline -- the
> > > company can go ahead and release its product with whatever features it
> > > needs to.
> > >
> > > But I'm with Cos -- the community has to be given time to get
> comfortable
> > > with
> > > the code base if for nothing else but for licensing implications.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Roman.
> > >
> >
>

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