ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Boudnik <...@boudnik.org>
Subject Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)
Date Fri, 19 May 2017 18:53:02 GMT
Dmitriy,

no one has ever suggested to keep the code in a separate repository
(once the grant issues were sorted out). Not sure where you get this
impression. I don't think there's anything to argue about ;)

Cos


--
  Take care,
Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik


On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:36 PM, 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
View raw message