I am -1 on option 2. There is no need to do so, as going back on versions at this stage has consequences to Apex users.
I am for option 1, but I want to propose explicit change to the text. Based on verbatim text, I am voting -1 on option 1. I believe in the original discussion thread there was talk about continuing release-3 that should be explicit in the vote. option 3 (modified option 1) 3. Version 4.0 as major version change from 3.x. Community members can continue with release-3 (3.9, 3.10, ...). PR merges into release-3 should not be blocked if it is not immediately merged into master branch. Over a longer period of time, I expect code to progressively be in version 4. Changing package names is usually not a reason for major version upgrade. The cause is usually an API change. Currently we are moving to version 4, without an ask for API change. Thks, Amol E:a...@datatorrent.com | M: 510-449-2606 | Twitter: @*amolhkekre* www.datatorrent.com On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Pramod Immaneni <pra...@datatorrent.com> wrote: > +1 for option 1 > -1 for option 2 as I see no impending need to do this now, as in if we > don't do this, things will fall apart. It will be a source of more > disruption and confusion. Malhar has been around for quite some time, > evolving and growing during this period and going to version 4.0 would be a > natural progression. Since this is a major version change, there is more of > a license to relegate things that are deemed unsuitable for production use > to contrib (an area designated for that purpose), remove deprecated items, > move things around and possibly even make backwards incompatible > functionality changes so I don't see a need to change the artifact id and > identity of the project. > > Thanks > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Munagala Ramanath < > amberar...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > > > +1 for option 2 (primary) > > +1 for option 1 (secondary) > > Ram > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2017, 6:58:46 AM PDT, Vlad Rozov < > vro...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > +1 for option 2 (primary) > > +1 for option 1 (secondary) > > > > Thank you, > > > > Vlad > > > > On 8/21/17 23:37, Ananth G wrote: > > > +1 for option 2 and second vote for option 1 > > > > > > Have we finalized the library name ? Going from Apex-malhar 3.7 to > > Apex-malhar-1.0 would be counter intuitive. Also it would be great if we > > have an agreed process to mark an operator from @evolving to stable > version > > given we are trying to address this as well as part of the proposal > > > > > > Regards > > > Ananth > > > > > >> On 22 Aug 2017, at 11:40 am, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> > > >> +1 for option 2 (second vote +1 for option 1) > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> This is to formalize the major version change for Malhar discussed in > > [1]. > > >>> > > >>> There are two options for major version change. Major version change > > will > > >>> rename legacy packages to org.apache.apex sub packages while > retaining > > file > > >>> history in git. Other cleanup such as removing deprecated code is > also > > >>> expected. > > >>> > > >>> 1. Version 4.0 as major version change from 3.x > > >>> > > >>> 2. Version 1.0 with simultaneous change of Maven artifact IDs > > >>> > > >>> Please refer to the discussion thread [1] for reasoning behind both > of > > the > > >>> options. > > >>> > > >>> Please vote on both options. Primary vote for your preferred option, > > >>> secondary for the other. Secondary vote can be used when counting > > primary > > >>> vote alone isn't conclusive. > > >>> > > >>> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Thomas > > >>> > > >>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ > > bd1db8a2d01e23b0c0ab98a785f6ee > > >>> 9492a1ac9e52d422568a46e5f3@%3Cdev.apex.apache.org%3E > > >>> > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > Vlad > > >
