Date   

Re: [VOTE] JanusGraph 0.5.3 release

Abhay Pandit <abha...@...>
 

Hi,

I performed the following tests and it worked for me. +1
- Built the source code
- Used built jars for Bulk Loader and Bulk Traversal using SparkGraphComputer and it worked for me.
- Ran Gremlin console and performed simple add node, drop node and simple traversal.

Thanks,
Abhay


On Mon, 28 Dec 2020 at 21:09, BO XUAN LI <libo...@...> wrote:
I built our application using v0.5.3 source code and ran it through our test suites. All tests passed. I also did some simple traversals and it worked fine. +1.

Btw https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/blob/v0.5/docs/changelog.md#version-053-release-date-december-24-2020 has some minor code rendering issue, but it should not affect reading.

Best regards,
Boxuan Li

On Dec 26, 2020, at 6:49 PM, Oleksandr Porunov <alexand...@...> wrote:

Also, executed all TP tests for 0.5.3 with "mvn clean install -Dtest.skip.tp=false -DskipTests=true". All tests passed.

On Friday, December 25, 2020 at 2:20:19 PM UTC+2 Oleksandr Porunov wrote:
Hello,

We are happy to announce that JanusGraph 0.5.3 is ready for release.

The release artifacts can be found at this location:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/releases/tag/v0.5.3

A full binary distribution is provided for user convenience:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/releases/download/v0.5.3/janusgraph-full-0.5.3.zip

A truncated binary distribution is provided:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/releases/download/v0.5.3/janusgraph-0.5.3.zip

The GPG key used to sign the release artifacts is available at:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/releases/download/v0.5.3/KEYS

The docs can be found here:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/releases/download/v0.5.3/janusgraph-0.5.3-doc.zip

The release tag in Git can be found here:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/tree/v0.5.3

The release notes are available here:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/blob/v0.5/docs/changelog.md#version-053-release-date-december-24-2020

This [VOTE] will open for the next 3 days --- closing Saturday, December 28, 2020 at 2:20 PM GMT+3.
All are welcome to review and vote on the release, but only votes from TSC members are binding.
My vote is +1. 

Thank you,
Oleksandr Porunov

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusgr...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/8c3b1cfb-f639-49c9-b6ba-44629fe71296n%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusgr...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/8FE9C7D7-540A-4CFF-BE01-005358C918E4%40connect.hku.hk.


Re: [VOTE] JanusGraph 0.5.3 release

BO XUAN LI <libo...@...>
 

I built our application using v0.5.3 source code and ran it through our test suites. All tests passed. I also did some simple traversals and it worked fine. +1.

Btw https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/blob/v0.5/docs/changelog.md#version-053-release-date-december-24-2020 has some minor code rendering issue, but it should not affect reading.

Best regards,
Boxuan Li

On Dec 26, 2020, at 6:49 PM, Oleksandr Porunov <alexand...@...> wrote:

Also, executed all TP tests for 0.5.3 with "mvn clean install -Dtest.skip.tp=false -DskipTests=true". All tests passed.

On Friday, December 25, 2020 at 2:20:19 PM UTC+2 Oleksandr Porunov wrote:
Hello,

We are happy to announce that JanusGraph 0.5.3 is ready for release.

The release artifacts can be found at this location:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/releases/tag/v0.5.3

A full binary distribution is provided for user convenience:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/releases/download/v0.5.3/janusgraph-full-0.5.3.zip

A truncated binary distribution is provided:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/releases/download/v0.5.3/janusgraph-0.5.3.zip

The GPG key used to sign the release artifacts is available at:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/releases/download/v0.5.3/KEYS

The docs can be found here:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/releases/download/v0.5.3/janusgraph-0.5.3-doc.zip

The release tag in Git can be found here:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/tree/v0.5.3

The release notes are available here:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/blob/v0.5/docs/changelog.md#version-053-release-date-december-24-2020

This [VOTE] will open for the next 3 days --- closing Saturday, December 28, 2020 at 2:20 PM GMT+3.
All are welcome to review and vote on the release, but only votes from TSC members are binding.
My vote is +1. 

Thank you,
Oleksandr Porunov

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusgr...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/8c3b1cfb-f639-49c9-b6ba-44629fe71296n%40googlegroups.com.


Re: [VOTE] JanusGraph 0.5.3 release

Oleksandr Porunov <alexand...@...>
 

Also, executed all TP tests for 0.5.3 with "mvn clean install -Dtest.skip.tp=false -DskipTests=true". All tests passed.


On Friday, December 25, 2020 at 2:20:19 PM UTC+2 Oleksandr Porunov wrote:
Hello,

We are happy to announce that JanusGraph 0.5.3 is ready for release.

The release artifacts can be found at this location:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/releases/tag/v0.5.3

A full binary distribution is provided for user convenience:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/releases/download/v0.5.3/janusgraph-full-0.5.3.zip

A truncated binary distribution is provided:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/releases/download/v0.5.3/janusgraph-0.5.3.zip

The GPG key used to sign the release artifacts is available at:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/releases/download/v0.5.3/KEYS

The docs can be found here:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/releases/download/v0.5.3/janusgraph-0.5.3-doc.zip

The release tag in Git can be found here:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/tree/v0.5.3

The release notes are available here:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/blob/v0.5/docs/changelog.md#version-053-release-date-december-24-2020

This [VOTE] will open for the next 3 days --- closing Saturday, December 28, 2020 at 2:20 PM GMT+3.
All are welcome to review and vote on the release, but only votes from TSC members are binding.
My vote is +1.

Thank you,
Oleksandr Porunov


[VOTE] JanusGraph 0.5.3 release

Oleksandr Porunov <alexand...@...>
 

Hello,

We are happy to announce that JanusGraph 0.5.3 is ready for release.

The release artifacts can be found at this location:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/releases/tag/v0.5.3

A full binary distribution is provided for user convenience:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/releases/download/v0.5.3/janusgraph-full-0.5.3.zip

A truncated binary distribution is provided:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/releases/download/v0.5.3/janusgraph-0.5.3.zip

The GPG key used to sign the release artifacts is available at:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/releases/download/v0.5.3/KEYS

The docs can be found here:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/releases/download/v0.5.3/janusgraph-0.5.3-doc.zip

The release tag in Git can be found here:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/tree/v0.5.3

The release notes are available here:
        https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/blob/v0.5/docs/changelog.md#version-053-release-date-december-24-2020

This [VOTE] will open for the next 3 days --- closing Saturday, December 28, 2020 at 2:20 PM GMT+3.
All are welcome to review and vote on the release, but only votes from TSC members are binding.
My vote is +1.

Thank you,
Oleksandr Porunov


Re: GitHub Discussions

Oleksandr Porunov <alexand...@...>
 

JanusGraph Discussions are set here: https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/discussions
Right now it has default 4 categories: General, Ideas, Q&A, Show and tell. We may need to think about useful categories and change or add them. I just tried to move GitHub Issue with a label "question" to a GitHub Discussion. It works nice. I believe it will help us manage discussions in a convenient way.
All we need is to think about categories: https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/discussions/categories


On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 4:08:50 PM UTC+2 Oleksandr Porunov wrote:
Also, we can convert issues to discussions instead of closing them. I think, it might me useful often times.

My vote is +1

I will go ahead and create base Discussions. In case anyone have any opposite opinion, please, share your thoughts. We can always turn Discussions off.

Best regards,
Oleksandr Porunov

On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 5:58:41 PM UTC+2 li...@... wrote:
Absolutely agree. Users might not be very happy when they see their questions get closed on GitHub, and some of them are reluctant to use a mailing list for communication (not to mention Google Groups is not available in every country/company).

I’ve also seen discussions around migrating to GitHub Discussions on other communities, e.g. https://github.com/snowpackjs/snowpack/issues/606 seems their users are happy about the move.

Vote +1

Best regards,
Boxuan

On Dec 9, 2020, at 4:36 PM, 'faro...@googlemail.com' via JanusGraph developers <jan...@...> wrote:

Hi

Yeah, it would like have such a feature for a long time. I see often issues the issue with google groups that just reactions is not possible and also including code snippets would be great. What i would hope is to have a single search for discussions and issues.

Vote +1

Greetings,
Jan

On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 6:18:40 AM UTC+1 abhay...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah that will be very helpful.

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 00:43, Oleksandr Porunov <alex...@...> wrote:
Hi,

GitHub adds a new feature - "GitHub Discussions" which could be a handy place for user's collaboration.
We often see that users open GitHub Issues to ask some question / etc. instead of going to Google group for the discussion. By enabling GitHub Discussions we will have a big button in the project repository which might be a handy tool for new users to collaborate.

Best regards,
Oleksandr Porunov

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusg...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/db2e179a-670f-4720-9cc9-001d32db7231n%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusg...@....


Re: GitHub Discussions

Oleksandr Porunov <alexand...@...>
 

Also, we can convert issues to discussions instead of closing them. I think, it might me useful often times.

My vote is +1

I will go ahead and create base Discussions. In case anyone have any opposite opinion, please, share your thoughts. We can always turn Discussions off.

Best regards,
Oleksandr Porunov


On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 5:58:41 PM UTC+2 li...@... wrote:
Absolutely agree. Users might not be very happy when they see their questions get closed on GitHub, and some of them are reluctant to use a mailing list for communication (not to mention Google Groups is not available in every country/company).

I’ve also seen discussions around migrating to GitHub Discussions on other communities, e.g. https://github.com/snowpackjs/snowpack/issues/606 seems their users are happy about the move.

Vote +1

Best regards,
Boxuan

On Dec 9, 2020, at 4:36 PM, 'faro...@googlemail.com' via JanusGraph developers <jan...@...> wrote:

Hi

Yeah, it would like have such a feature for a long time. I see often issues the issue with google groups that just reactions is not possible and also including code snippets would be great. What i would hope is to have a single search for discussions and issues.

Vote +1

Greetings,
Jan

On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 6:18:40 AM UTC+1 abhay...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah that will be very helpful.

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 00:43, Oleksandr Porunov <alex...@...> wrote:
Hi,

GitHub adds a new feature - "GitHub Discussions" which could be a handy place for user's collaboration.
We often see that users open GitHub Issues to ask some question / etc. instead of going to Google group for the discussion. By enabling GitHub Discussions we will have a big button in the project repository which might be a handy tool for new users to collaborate.

Best regards,
Oleksandr Porunov

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusg...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/db2e179a-670f-4720-9cc9-001d32db7231n%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusg...@....


Re: GitHub Discussions

BO XUAN LI <libo...@...>
 

Absolutely agree. Users might not be very happy when they see their questions get closed on GitHub, and some of them are reluctant to use a mailing list for communication (not to mention Google Groups is not available in every country/company).

I’ve also seen discussions around migrating to GitHub Discussions on other communities, e.g. https://github.com/snowpackjs/snowpack/issues/606 seems their users are happy about the move.

Vote +1

Best regards,
Boxuan

On Dec 9, 2020, at 4:36 PM, 'faro...@googlemail.com' via JanusGraph developers <janusgr...@...> wrote:

Hi

Yeah, it would like have such a feature for a long time. I see often issues the issue with google groups that just reactions is not possible and also including code snippets would be great. What i would hope is to have a single search for discussions and issues.

Vote +1

Greetings,
Jan

On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 6:18:40 AM UTC+1 abhay...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah that will be very helpful.

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 00:43, Oleksandr Porunov <alex...@...> wrote:
Hi,

GitHub adds a new feature - "GitHub Discussions" which could be a handy place for user's collaboration.
We often see that users open GitHub Issues to ask some question / etc. instead of going to Google group for the discussion. By enabling GitHub Discussions we will have a big button in the project repository which might be a handy tool for new users to collaborate.

Best regards,
Oleksandr Porunov

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusg...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/db2e179a-670f-4720-9cc9-001d32db7231n%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusgr...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/db7c0179-1123-4adb-ac67-3fcd0c00b9e6n%40googlegroups.com.


Re: GitHub Discussions

"fa...@googlemail.com" <faro...@...>
 

Hi

Yeah, it would like have such a feature for a long time. I see often issues the issue with google groups that just reactions is not possible and also including code snippets would be great. What i would hope is to have a single search for discussions and issues.

Vote +1

Greetings,
Jan

On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 6:18:40 AM UTC+1 ab...@... wrote:
Yeah that will be very helpful.

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 00:43, Oleksandr Porunov <alex...@...> wrote:
Hi,

GitHub adds a new feature - "GitHub Discussions" which could be a handy place for user's collaboration.
We often see that users open GitHub Issues to ask some question / etc. instead of going to Google group for the discussion. By enabling GitHub Discussions we will have a big button in the project repository which might be a handy tool for new users to collaborate.

Best regards,
Oleksandr Porunov

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusg...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/db2e179a-670f-4720-9cc9-001d32db7231n%40googlegroups.com.


Re: GitHub Discussions

Abhay Pandit <abha...@...>
 

Yeah that will be very helpful.


On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 00:43, Oleksandr Porunov <alexand...@...> wrote:
Hi,

GitHub adds a new feature - "GitHub Discussions" which could be a handy place for user's collaboration.
We often see that users open GitHub Issues to ask some question / etc. instead of going to Google group for the discussion. By enabling GitHub Discussions we will have a big button in the project repository which might be a handy tool for new users to collaborate.

Best regards,
Oleksandr Porunov

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusgr...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/db2e179a-670f-4720-9cc9-001d32db7231n%40googlegroups.com.


GitHub Discussions

Oleksandr Porunov <alexand...@...>
 

Hi,

GitHub adds a new feature - "GitHub Discussions" which could be a handy place for user's collaboration.
We often see that users open GitHub Issues to ask some question / etc. instead of going to Google group for the discussion. By enabling GitHub Discussions we will have a big button in the project repository which might be a handy tool for new users to collaborate.

Best regards,
Oleksandr Porunov


Re: Add support to AWS Keyspaces (or DynamoDB) as storage backend #2154

Pat Rice <rice....@...>
 

 FYI, I've been poking around at this, and it won't work right now due to limitations within's AWS's Cassandra implementation. Upsetting indeed, as the MCS pricing (especially for smaller dev environments) is very attractive over using something like EMR to host hbase.

To prototype what it would look like I did the following actions:
  1. I enabled SSL. This is obvious and well documented, but required for MCS. AWS only exposes SSL traffic.
  2. AWS MCS uses a proprietary partitioner - JanusGraph expects a set of hard-coded partitioners which are expressed within the CQLStoreManager class. I added AWS's partitioner to this block and tested with several different ordering configurations. Adding the partitioner here allows us to get part that issue, but causes a new issue:
  3. When you resolve the DNS for AWS's MCS, you're connecting to a single Cassandra node, which then publishes a set of peers. By default, DataStax's driver will then attempt to connect to those peer IPs, which AWS doesn't expose. This causes an issue where the driver will attempt to connect to the broadcast peers which are not exposed. To resolve this issue, you add an AddressTranslator to the cluster builder (also in CQLStoreManager) that translates all those private IP address peers into the reported AWS endpoint - essentially you have 1 main contactpoint (the one you pass in via the hostname attribute in the properties file), and you overwrite all the peers with that contactpoint. This allows you to successfully connect to MCS and start to initiatlize the cluster.
  4. Finally, when JanusGraph starts initializing, it runs queries that require the TOKEN keyword from Cassandra - these would be required any time you do a large table scan style query. TOKEN is not currently supported in AWS MCS (https://forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?messageID=943452 among other help articles from AWS) and thus throws a "Token not yet supported" exception. This is coming from initializing the CQLKeyColumnValueStore class.
If anyone has ideas of where to go from here, I'm certainly open to doing some additional testing, but it seems like that's a limitation that may be unworkable here based on my admittedly limited understanding of how JanusGraph is using Cassandra behind-the-scenes.

On Monday, August 24, 2020 at 2:36:00 PM UTC-5 Mick Delaney wrote:
Yes, seems compelling given the pricing of Keyspaces

On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 2:42:02 PM UTC+1 nic...@... wrote:

Hi all, 

I'm reporting here a feature request that i added as issue on the Janusgraph github project.

Describe the feature:
Add the possibility to use AWS Keyspaces as storage backend since it is a SaaS service and compatible with Cassandra. Or add the possibility to use AWS DynamoDB as storage backend using the old connector made by AWS Labs.
These could be good feature since developers could use managed services and avoid the difficulty in manage an "important storage like Cassandra"

Describe a specific use case for the feature:
In a completely SaaS architecture is common to have DBs and other technologies provided as a service. Have the possibility to connect Janus to an already existing (for other purposes) Keyspaces cluster or DynamoDB endpoint gives the possibility to have all data in a single service.



Is it something that could be feasable? Or something that someone else could use or need?? 

What do you think about it?


Cheers, 


Nicolò


Re: [DISCUSS] Move to GitHub Actions

Florian Hockmann <f...@...>
 

OK, looks like we have a consensus on moving to GitHub Actions. Then we can start with the migration now.

> I created an example for GitHub Actions by converting the foundation db travis ci to github actions.

> I also add two extra workflow to check a editorconfig and check for license header which can be copied over to all of our repos.

> What do you think of GitHub Actions?

Thanks, Jan, for working on this already so we have an example to see GitHub Actions working on one of our repos. I think it looks really promising! It's also nice to see how easy it is to add such additional checks.
I would though recommend that we don't do all at once in a single PR as that makes them harder to review and instead create follow-up PRs for the editorconfig and the license check. Adding these checks bloats the PR a bit as files unrelated to CI now need to be modified to get the checks green.

fa...@... schrieb am Samstag, 21. November 2020 um 18:04:59 UTC+1:

I created an example for GitHub Actions by converting the foundation db travis ci to github actions.

I also add two extra workflow to check a editorconfig and check for license header which can be copied over to all of our repos.

What do you think of GitHub Actions?

On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 8:33:52 AM UTC+1 Ja...@... wrote:

Currently, we have 6 repos with CI pipeline. So we have to convert all of the repos with a CI pipeline.

I already checkout how do you convert a dotnet project. I think will be helpful to do a step by step migration.
We should start with the small projects and than go to the main project.


Von: jan...@... <jan...@...> im Auftrag von Lakshay Rastogi <laks...@...>
Gesendet: Freitag, 20. November 2020 04:32:17
An: jan...@...
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Move to GitHub Actions
 
What would be required in terms of development in order to move to GitHub actions? 

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 4:09 AM Oleksandr Porunov <alex...@...> wrote:
Hi,

If that's the case, as for me it's obvious way to go.
+1 for moving to GitHub Actions

Best regards,
Oleksandr

On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 11:38:32 PM UTC+2 Ja...@... wrote:
Hi

I’m pretty sure about our limitations, which are just 20 concurrent runner at the same time for all public repos. The 2000 minutes are just for private repos (no build time limit for public repos).

Greetings, 
Jan 

On 19. Nov 2020, at 21:55, Oleksandr Porunov <alex...@...> wrote:


Hi,

Moving to GitHub actions seems to be a good idea but we need to understand our limitations. This link says that GitHub actions gives us 2000 minutes per month:

Best regards,
Oleksandr
On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 12:24:51 PM UTC+2 fa...@... wrote:
Hi

I did a small evaluation of GitHub Actions in February. GitHub Actions didn't allowed to run to open source project unlimited time at this time. This changed in April.

Old results can be found here.

Greetings,
Jan

On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 11:05:41 AM UTC+1 Florian Hockmann wrote:
Hi,

Travis CI has recently announced that they will only offer 1000 build minutes / month for OSS projects. Given that our builds currently take ~10h, we would only be able to execute around 2 builds per month of our main repository. While the linked
blog post also mentions the possibility to request more free build minutes, I'm not sure whether we want to rely on that and how realistic it is that they will provide us with enough build minutes. (Just to give an example: We would need around 50,000 build minutes per month to be able to execute 3 builds per day.)

To make matters worse, we're still on travis-ci.org which will be abandoned at the end of this year in favor of travis-ci.com. So, even if we want to stay with Travis, we would need to migrate our projects over from travis-ci.org to travis-ci.com.

Given these policy changes by Travis CI, I propose that we migrate to GitHub Actions which seems to be much more OSS friendly nowadays and which probably also allows us to better parallelize and therefore speed up our builds. It allows up to 20 concurrent jobs with a maximum runtime of 6h per job. This should also make it easier to execute the TinkerPop tests for more backends.

Any thoughts or concerns on this topic?


PS: For a bit more context about the changes in Travis CI for OSS projects, I recommend this blog post which made me aware of this in the first place.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusg...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/7fd40424-814e-4afd-abe6-70834a5d5b94n%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusg...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/3513c4ab-9197-438e-b08f-e375ff91ef0fn%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusg...@....


Re: [DISCUSS] Move to GitHub Actions

"fa...@googlemail.com" <faro...@...>
 

I created an example for GitHub Actions by converting the foundation db travis ci to github actions.

I also add two extra workflow to check a editorconfig and check for license header which can be copied over to all of our repos.

What do you think of GitHub Actions?

On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 8:33:52 AM UTC+1 Ja...@... wrote:

Currently, we have 6 repos with CI pipeline. So we have to convert all of the repos with a CI pipeline.

I already checkout how do you convert a dotnet project. I think will be helpful to do a step by step migration.
We should start with the small projects and than go to the main project.


Von: jan...@... <jan...@...> im Auftrag von Lakshay Rastogi <laks...@...>
Gesendet: Freitag, 20. November 2020 04:32:17
An: jan...@...
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Move to GitHub Actions
 
What would be required in terms of development in order to move to GitHub actions? 

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 4:09 AM Oleksandr Porunov <alex...@...> wrote:
Hi,

If that's the case, as for me it's obvious way to go.
+1 for moving to GitHub Actions

Best regards,
Oleksandr

On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 11:38:32 PM UTC+2 Ja...@... wrote:
Hi

I’m pretty sure about our limitations, which are just 20 concurrent runner at the same time for all public repos. The 2000 minutes are just for private repos (no build time limit for public repos).

Greetings, 
Jan 

On 19. Nov 2020, at 21:55, Oleksandr Porunov <alex...@...> wrote:


Hi,

Moving to GitHub actions seems to be a good idea but we need to understand our limitations. This link says that GitHub actions gives us 2000 minutes per month:

Best regards,
Oleksandr
On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 12:24:51 PM UTC+2 fa...@... wrote:
Hi

I did a small evaluation of GitHub Actions in February. GitHub Actions didn't allowed to run to open source project unlimited time at this time. This changed in April.

Old results can be found here.

Greetings,
Jan

On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 11:05:41 AM UTC+1 Florian Hockmann wrote:
Hi,

Travis CI has recently announced that they will only offer 1000 build minutes / month for OSS projects. Given that our builds currently take ~10h, we would only be able to execute around 2 builds per month of our main repository. While the linked
blog post also mentions the possibility to request more free build minutes, I'm not sure whether we want to rely on that and how realistic it is that they will provide us with enough build minutes. (Just to give an example: We would need around 50,000 build minutes per month to be able to execute 3 builds per day.)

To make matters worse, we're still on travis-ci.org which will be abandoned at the end of this year in favor of travis-ci.com. So, even if we want to stay with Travis, we would need to migrate our projects over from travis-ci.org to travis-ci.com.

Given these policy changes by Travis CI, I propose that we migrate to GitHub Actions which seems to be much more OSS friendly nowadays and which probably also allows us to better parallelize and therefore speed up our builds. It allows up to 20 concurrent jobs with a maximum runtime of 6h per job. This should also make it easier to execute the TinkerPop tests for more backends.

Any thoughts or concerns on this topic?


PS: For a bit more context about the changes in Travis CI for OSS projects, I recommend this blog post which made me aware of this in the first place.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusg...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/7fd40424-814e-4afd-abe6-70834a5d5b94n%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusg...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/3513c4ab-9197-438e-b08f-e375ff91ef0fn%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusg...@....


Re: [DISCUSS] Move to GitHub Actions

Jan....@...
 

Currently, we have 6 repos with CI pipeline. So we have to convert all of the repos with a CI pipeline.

I already checkout how do you convert a dotnet project. I think will be helpful to do a step by step migration.
We should start with the small projects and than go to the main project.


Von: janusgr...@... <janus...@...> im Auftrag von Lakshay Rastogi <laksha...@...>
Gesendet: Freitag, 20. November 2020 04:32:17
An: janusgr...@...
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Move to GitHub Actions
 
What would be required in terms of development in order to move to GitHub actions? 

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 4:09 AM Oleksandr Porunov <alexand...@...> wrote:
Hi,

If that's the case, as for me it's obvious way to go.
+1 for moving to GitHub Actions

Best regards,
Oleksandr

On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 11:38:32 PM UTC+2 Ja...@... wrote:
Hi

I’m pretty sure about our limitations, which are just 20 concurrent runner at the same time for all public repos. The 2000 minutes are just for private repos (no build time limit for public repos).

Greetings, 
Jan 

On 19. Nov 2020, at 21:55, Oleksandr Porunov <alex...@...> wrote:


Hi,

Moving to GitHub actions seems to be a good idea but we need to understand our limitations. This link says that GitHub actions gives us 2000 minutes per month:

Best regards,
Oleksandr
On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 12:24:51 PM UTC+2 fa...@... wrote:
Hi

I did a small evaluation of GitHub Actions in February. GitHub Actions didn't allowed to run to open source project unlimited time at this time. This changed in April.

Old results can be found here.

Greetings,
Jan

On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 11:05:41 AM UTC+1 Florian Hockmann wrote:
Hi,

Travis CI has recently announced that they will only offer 1000 build minutes / month for OSS projects. Given that our builds currently take ~10h, we would only be able to execute around 2 builds per month of our main repository. While the linked
blog post also mentions the possibility to request more free build minutes, I'm not sure whether we want to rely on that and how realistic it is that they will provide us with enough build minutes. (Just to give an example: We would need around 50,000 build minutes per month to be able to execute 3 builds per day.)

To make matters worse, we're still on travis-ci.org which will be abandoned at the end of this year in favor of travis-ci.com. So, even if we want to stay with Travis, we would need to migrate our projects over from travis-ci.org to travis-ci.com.

Given these policy changes by Travis CI, I propose that we migrate to GitHub Actions which seems to be much more OSS friendly nowadays and which probably also allows us to better parallelize and therefore speed up our builds. It allows up to 20 concurrent jobs with a maximum runtime of 6h per job. This should also make it easier to execute the TinkerPop tests for more backends.

Any thoughts or concerns on this topic?


PS: For a bit more context about the changes in Travis CI for OSS projects, I recommend this blog post which made me aware of this in the first place.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusg...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/7fd40424-814e-4afd-abe6-70834a5d5b94n%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusgraph-dev+unsu...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/3513c4ab-9197-438e-b08f-e375ff91ef0fn%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusgraph-dev+unsu...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/CAPvwvOEHnzhey9Xr5_D2%2B5ZqCB7UK2vKzmb961XMd3if39dfZg%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: [DISCUSS] Move to GitHub Actions

Lakshay Rastogi <lakshay1...@...>
 

What would be required in terms of development in order to move to GitHub actions? 


On Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 4:09 AM Oleksandr Porunov <alexand...@...> wrote:
Hi,

If that's the case, as for me it's obvious way to go.
+1 for moving to GitHub Actions

Best regards,
Oleksandr

On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 11:38:32 PM UTC+2 Ja...@... wrote:
Hi

I’m pretty sure about our limitations, which are just 20 concurrent runner at the same time for all public repos. The 2000 minutes are just for private repos (no build time limit for public repos).

Greetings, 
Jan 

On 19. Nov 2020, at 21:55, Oleksandr Porunov <alex...@...> wrote:


Hi,

Moving to GitHub actions seems to be a good idea but we need to understand our limitations. This link says that GitHub actions gives us 2000 minutes per month:

Best regards,
Oleksandr
On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 12:24:51 PM UTC+2 fa...@... wrote:
Hi

I did a small evaluation of GitHub Actions in February. GitHub Actions didn't allowed to run to open source project unlimited time at this time. This changed in April.

Old results can be found here.

Greetings,
Jan

On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 11:05:41 AM UTC+1 Florian Hockmann wrote:
Hi,

Travis CI has recently announced that they will only offer 1000 build minutes / month for OSS projects. Given that our builds currently take ~10h, we would only be able to execute around 2 builds per month of our main repository. While the linked
blog post also mentions the possibility to request more free build minutes, I'm not sure whether we want to rely on that and how realistic it is that they will provide us with enough build minutes. (Just to give an example: We would need around 50,000 build minutes per month to be able to execute 3 builds per day.)

To make matters worse, we're still on travis-ci.org which will be abandoned at the end of this year in favor of travis-ci.com. So, even if we want to stay with Travis, we would need to migrate our projects over from travis-ci.org to travis-ci.com.

Given these policy changes by Travis CI, I propose that we migrate to GitHub Actions which seems to be much more OSS friendly nowadays and which probably also allows us to better parallelize and therefore speed up our builds. It allows up to 20 concurrent jobs with a maximum runtime of 6h per job. This should also make it easier to execute the TinkerPop tests for more backends.

Any thoughts or concerns on this topic?


PS: For a bit more context about the changes in Travis CI for OSS projects, I recommend this blog post which made me aware of this in the first place.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusg...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/7fd40424-814e-4afd-abe6-70834a5d5b94n%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusgr...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/3513c4ab-9197-438e-b08f-e375ff91ef0fn%40googlegroups.com.


Re: [DISCUSS] Move to GitHub Actions

Oleksandr Porunov <alexand...@...>
 

Hi,

If that's the case, as for me it's obvious way to go.
+1 for moving to GitHub Actions

Best regards,
Oleksandr

On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 11:38:32 PM UTC+2 Ja...@... wrote:
Hi

I’m pretty sure about our limitations, which are just 20 concurrent runner at the same time for all public repos. The 2000 minutes are just for private repos (no build time limit for public repos).

Greetings, 
Jan 

On 19. Nov 2020, at 21:55, Oleksandr Porunov <alex...@...> wrote:


Hi,

Moving to GitHub actions seems to be a good idea but we need to understand our limitations. This link says that GitHub actions gives us 2000 minutes per month:

Best regards,
Oleksandr
On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 12:24:51 PM UTC+2 fa...@... wrote:
Hi

I did a small evaluation of GitHub Actions in February. GitHub Actions didn't allowed to run to open source project unlimited time at this time. This changed in April.

Old results can be found here.

Greetings,
Jan

On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 11:05:41 AM UTC+1 Florian Hockmann wrote:
Hi,

Travis CI has recently announced that they will only offer 1000 build minutes / month for OSS projects. Given that our builds currently take ~10h, we would only be able to execute around 2 builds per month of our main repository. While the linked
blog post also mentions the possibility to request more free build minutes, I'm not sure whether we want to rely on that and how realistic it is that they will provide us with enough build minutes. (Just to give an example: We would need around 50,000 build minutes per month to be able to execute 3 builds per day.)

To make matters worse, we're still on travis-ci.org which will be abandoned at the end of this year in favor of travis-ci.com. So, even if we want to stay with Travis, we would need to migrate our projects over from travis-ci.org to travis-ci.com.

Given these policy changes by Travis CI, I propose that we migrate to GitHub Actions which seems to be much more OSS friendly nowadays and which probably also allows us to better parallelize and therefore speed up our builds. It allows up to 20 concurrent jobs with a maximum runtime of 6h per job. This should also make it easier to execute the TinkerPop tests for more backends.

Any thoughts or concerns on this topic?


PS: For a bit more context about the changes in Travis CI for OSS projects, I recommend this blog post which made me aware of this in the first place.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusg...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/7fd40424-814e-4afd-abe6-70834a5d5b94n%40googlegroups.com.


Re: [DISCUSS] Move to GitHub Actions

Jan....@...
 

Hi

I’m pretty sure about our limitations, which are just 20 concurrent runner at the same time for all public repos. The 2000 minutes are just for private repos (no build time limit for public repos).

Greetings, 
Jan 

On 19. Nov 2020, at 21:55, Oleksandr Porunov <alexan...@...> wrote:


Hi,

Moving to GitHub actions seems to be a good idea but we need to understand our limitations. This link says that GitHub actions gives us 2000 minutes per month:
https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/setting-up-and-managing-billing-and-payments-on-github/about-billing-for-github-actions

Best regards,
Oleksandr
On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 12:24:51 PM UTC+2 fa...@... wrote:
Hi

I did a small evaluation of GitHub Actions in February. GitHub Actions didn't allowed to run to open source project unlimited time at this time. This changed in April.

Old results can be found here.

Greetings,
Jan

On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 11:05:41 AM UTC+1 Florian Hockmann wrote:
Hi,

Travis CI has recently announced that they will only offer 1000 build minutes / month for OSS projects. Given that our builds currently take ~10h, we would only be able to execute around 2 builds per month of our main repository. While the linked
blog post also mentions the possibility to request more free build minutes, I'm not sure whether we want to rely on that and how realistic it is that they will provide us with enough build minutes. (Just to give an example: We would need around 50,000 build minutes per month to be able to execute 3 builds per day.)

To make matters worse, we're still on travis-ci.org which will be abandoned at the end of this year in favor of travis-ci.com. So, even if we want to stay with Travis, we would need to migrate our projects over from travis-ci.org to travis-ci.com.

Given these policy changes by Travis CI, I propose that we migrate to GitHub Actions which seems to be much more OSS friendly nowadays and which probably also allows us to better parallelize and therefore speed up our builds. It allows up to 20 concurrent jobs with a maximum runtime of 6h per job. This should also make it easier to execute the TinkerPop tests for more backends.

Any thoughts or concerns on this topic?


PS: For a bit more context about the changes in Travis CI for OSS projects, I recommend this blog post which made me aware of this in the first place.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusgraph-dev+unsu...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/7fd40424-814e-4afd-abe6-70834a5d5b94n%40googlegroups.com.


Re: [DISCUSS] Move to GitHub Actions

Oleksandr Porunov <alexand...@...>
 

Hi,

Moving to GitHub actions seems to be a good idea but we need to understand our limitations. This link says that GitHub actions gives us 2000 minutes per month:
https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/setting-up-and-managing-billing-and-payments-on-github/about-billing-for-github-actions

Best regards,
Oleksandr

On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 12:24:51 PM UTC+2 fa...@... wrote:
Hi

I did a small evaluation of GitHub Actions in February. GitHub Actions didn't allowed to run to open source project unlimited time at this time. This changed in April.

Old results can be found here.

Greetings,
Jan

On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 11:05:41 AM UTC+1 Florian Hockmann wrote:
Hi,

Travis CI has recently announced that they will only offer 1000 build minutes / month for OSS projects. Given that our builds currently take ~10h, we would only be able to execute around 2 builds per month of our main repository. While the linked
blog post also mentions the possibility to request more free build minutes, I'm not sure whether we want to rely on that and how realistic it is that they will provide us with enough build minutes. (Just to give an example: We would need around 50,000 build minutes per month to be able to execute 3 builds per day.)

To make matters worse, we're still on travis-ci.org which will be abandoned at the end of this year in favor of travis-ci.com. So, even if we want to stay with Travis, we would need to migrate our projects over from travis-ci.org to travis-ci.com.

Given these policy changes by Travis CI, I propose that we migrate to GitHub Actions which seems to be much more OSS friendly nowadays and which probably also allows us to better parallelize and therefore speed up our builds. It allows up to 20 concurrent jobs with a maximum runtime of 6h per job. This should also make it easier to execute the TinkerPop tests for more backends.

Any thoughts or concerns on this topic?


PS: For a bit more context about the changes in Travis CI for OSS projects, I recommend this blog post which made me aware of this in the first place.


Re: To Contribute Our Code Enhancement Back to JanusGraph-FoundationDB Storage Plugin

Henry Saputra <henry....@...>
 

Just noticed this one.

Congrats, Jun Li and Hieu Nguyen

It is great to see the hard work done inside eBay can be shared with the community!

- Henry


On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 7:11 AM Jun Li <jltz9...@...> wrote:

Hello,

In eBay, we now have JanusGraph deployed in production, with FoundationDB being the backend store. The details on the design, deployment and the eBay use cases can be found in last year’s FoundationDB Summit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtB1BPG00PE). We took the earlier version of JanusGraph-FoundationDB plugin developed by Ted Wilmes in February 2019, and have made bug fixing and improvement over the last two years.  Now we would like to contribute our code back to the open source community, with the following improved features:

(1)Some bug fixing for the current JanusGraph FoundationDB plugin, and support of Async. Iterator. With Asynchronous Iterator, we can greatly leverage FoundationDB’s Asynchronous Iterator in terms of on-demand data stream pulling, better memory efficiency, better parallelism for MultiQuery support. We introduce “iterator” mode, along with the current mode that we call “list” mode.

(2)Enable Prefetching on Global Read Version of FoundationDB. This allows read-only query to use a slightly delayed GRV for snap-shot read (configurable, say 100 ms delayed), but save the GRV fetching time from the Primary DC. In the cross-datacenter production environment, the saving can be as large as > 50 ms due to this GRV pre-fetching.

(3) Support Read-Only GraphDB from the specified environment variables at GraphDB engine start-up.

(4)Context propagation that allows the Client Application to express “read-only” optimization support from Feature 2 mentioned above, to the FoundationDB storage plugin. So that write-involved queries will not be optimized. Furthermore, we can allow transaction reset with “read-commit-write” mode to be per-transaction, and only for the “read-only” queries, further optimization for “read-only” queries.The write-involved queries will still follow "serializable" mode for strong consistency.

(5)Enable TLS that is supported by FoundationDB. Security is important in the production environment.

(6)Enable Prometheus Metrics Monitoring. So that we can have good visibility across multiple datacenter deployment in the production environment. From the metrics collected, dashboards and alerts can be further developed easily. We can share our Grafana dashboards JSON configuration files and Prometheus alert rules used in our production environment  to the open-source community also. 

The first PR on Feature 1 above can be found at: https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph-foundationdb/pull/50

Regards,

Jun Li and Hieu Nguyen



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JanusGraph developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to janusgr...@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/janusgraph-dev/43fd48ac-9211-48ee-a1ea-240354010dc2n%40googlegroups.com.


Re: [DISCUSS] Move to GitHub Actions

"fa...@googlemail.com" <faro...@...>
 

Hi

I did a small evaluation of GitHub Actions in February. GitHub Actions didn't allowed to run to open source project unlimited time at this time. This changed in April.

Old results can be found here.

Greetings,
Jan

On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 11:05:41 AM UTC+1 Florian Hockmann wrote:
Hi,

Travis CI has recently announced that they will only offer 1000 build minutes / month for OSS projects. Given that our builds currently take ~10h, we would only be able to execute around 2 builds per month of our main repository. While the linked
blog post also mentions the possibility to request more free build minutes, I'm not sure whether we want to rely on that and how realistic it is that they will provide us with enough build minutes. (Just to give an example: We would need around 50,000 build minutes per month to be able to execute 3 builds per day.)

To make matters worse, we're still on travis-ci.org which will be abandoned at the end of this year in favor of travis-ci.com. So, even if we want to stay with Travis, we would need to migrate our projects over from travis-ci.org to travis-ci.com.

Given these policy changes by Travis CI, I propose that we migrate to GitHub Actions which seems to be much more OSS friendly nowadays and which probably also allows us to better parallelize and therefore speed up our builds. It allows up to 20 concurrent jobs with a maximum runtime of 6h per job. This should also make it easier to execute the TinkerPop tests for more backends.

Any thoughts or concerns on this topic?


PS: For a bit more context about the changes in Travis CI for OSS projects, I recommend this blog post which made me aware of this in the first place.

141 - 160 of 1601