ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Apache Ignite 2.7 release
Date Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:11:05 GMT
Hello!

Thank you for the clarifications! Your change looks good to me now.

Regards,
-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


вт, 11 сент. 2018 г. в 5:53, Roman Shtykh <rshtykh@yahoo.com>:

> Ilya,
>
> The "latest" version is the default, and resolved by
> https://ignite.apache.org/latest which is used by our web site when a
> user download the latest Ignite version. And I think this is the authority
> to judge of the latest official release (pom.xml you suggest can have
> SNAPSHOTs etc.).
> Also, as I explained during our review sessions, ignite-mesos-2.6.0 is a
> driver and doesn't mean you need to have Ignite 2.6.0. User can run any
> version of Ignite he/she specifies. By default, it's "latest" but a user
> can specify any version needed, even from a non-archive URL.
>
> In short, what we have now
> 1. mesos driver (ignite-mesos-x.x.x) will use "latest" version by default
> -> it will try to resolve the latest officially releases version of Apache
> Ignite, find the closest mirror and download Ignite in a minute. If the
> version resolution fails, we fall back to the slow apache archive (as you
> suggest; in my opinion we better fail-fast instead of waiting for hours to
> download, so the user can choose another download option (3))
> 2. If the user specifies the version explicitly, it goes to the slow
> apache archive.
> 3. The user can put ignite zip file on his/her http server and provide the
> URL as a parameter to the driver, if options 1 and 2 don't work.
>
> As you see, there are 3 options. And I just fix the 1st one with
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9388 and don't change the
> original logic (which I find reasonable) documented on our site -- I don't
> see how it blocks anything.
>
> Roman Shtykh
>
>
> On Monday, September 10, 2018, 6:16:15 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hello!
>
> There's still two issues with the submission.
>
> The first one is that we're downloading "latest" version from preferred
> mirror but a specified version, such as "2.6", we're also going to download
> from "slow" archive.apache.org/dist.
> That's a great limitation for this change, since most real deployments of
> Apache Ignite will have their Ignite version pegged to a specific release.
> But in this case there's no win in download speed.
> *In my opinion it is a blocker.*
>
> The second one is that we can't download anything when we failed to
> resolve "latest". My idea is that we should try and download last known
> version in this case, which can be pushed to source from pom.xml, as we
> already do with URLs. So if you could not resolve "latest" you will
> download 2.7.0.
>
> Buuut, maybe it's not necessary, maybe we should just *discourage
> "latest"*, which is in my opinion almost always a bad idea.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> вс, 9 сент. 2018 г. в 5:47, Roman Shtykh <rshtykh@yahoo.com>:
>
> Hi Ilya,
>
> Sorry, missed that.
> Added now.
>
> --
> Roman Shtykh
>
>
> On Thursday, September 6, 2018, 6:16:58 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hello!
>
> The last of my requests still standing is that we should fall-back to
> single URL download in case of error with 'latest' version. Everything else
> looks good to me.
>
> Can we do that? I'm really worried that Apache API will go sour.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> чт, 6 сент. 2018 г. в 8:56, Roman Shtykh <rshtykh@yahoo.com>:
>
> Hi Ilya,
>
> Thanks again.
>
> 1) Done.
> 2) Used catch() for latest version.
>
> Please see my comments on github.
> --
> Roman Shtykh
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018, 11:30:10 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hello!
>
> I've left a new wave of replies.
>
> Basically, 1) let's keep DOWNLOAD_URL_PATTERN string value inlined so
> that it will work even if build process is broken (would be useful for e.g.
> developing out of IDE)
> And also I urge you to catch() around new fragile Apache JSON API
> resolving, and download the 'current' version instead, as defined by
> ignite-mesos version.
>
> This is because this module is not under continuouos scrutiny so extra
> care should be applied.
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> вт, 4 сент. 2018 г. в 13:42, Roman Shtykh <rshtykh@yahoo.com>:
>
> Thanks, Ilya!
> I will check your comments, and discuss it at JIRA.
>
> --
> Roman Shtykh
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 4, 2018, 7:17:53 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hello!
>
> IGNITE-9408 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9408> looks
> good to me and may be merged right away.
>
> IGNITE-9388 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9388> needs
> more work in my opinion, I have commented the PR. I also advice having test
> for this functionality.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> вт, 4 сент. 2018 г. в 6:52, Roman Shtykh <rshtykh@yahoo.com.invalid>:
>
> Igniters,
> I would like Mesos integration update be included in the upcoming
> release.Can anyone review prs for the following issues?
> IGNITE-9388: mesos IgniteProvider tries to access obsolete ignite.run or
> download from slow archiveIGNITE-9408: Update mesos version
>
> Roman Shtykh
>
>     On Thursday, August 30, 2018, 9:25:43 p.m. GMT+9, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradurvs@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Hi Igniters!
>
> I'm working on the following Service Grid tasks:
> - IGNITE-8361 Use discovery messages for service deployment
> - IGNITE-8362 Collect service deployment results asynchronously on
> coordinator
> - IGNITE-8363 Handle topology changes during service deployment
> - IGNITE-8364 Propagate deployed services to joining nodes
> - IGNITE-8365 Introduce service failure events
> - IGNITE-3392 Propagate service deployment results from assigned nodes
> to initiator
>
> Let's call them *phase 1* because the should be implemented together
> (atomically).
>
> I do my best to finish phase 1 for including to 2.7 release.
>
> But I'm not sure that the solution will be fully completed till the
> beginning of October.
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 7:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hell, Yakov
> >
> > I'm ok with your proposal.
> >
> >        * Scope freeze - September 17 - We should have a full list of
> tickets for 2.7 here.
> >        * Code freeze - October 01 - We should merge all 2.7 tickets to
> master here.
> >        * Vote on RC1 - October 11.
> >        * Vote on release - October 15.
> >
> > В Ср, 29/08/2018 в 12:39 +0300, Yakov Zhdanov пишет:
> > > Nikolay,
> > >
> > > I think we should have 2 weeks after code freeze which by the way may
> > > include RC1 voting stage. This way I would like us to agree that
> release
> > > candidate should be sent to vote on Oct, 11th and we can release on
> Oct,
> > > 15th.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > --Yakov
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>
>

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