Pramod talked about "falling apart" but his argument was that things are not currently "falling apart" to need any of these options urgently. I agree with that thought so my vote is -1 for option 2 and +1 for option 1.
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote: > I would argue that things won't fall apart in both cases whether > artifactId and version are changed or not, so I don't see why it is -1 for > the option 2. When groupId was changed from com.datatorrent to > org.apache.apex, things have not fall apart :). > > Thank you, > > Vlad > > > On 8/22/17 08:31, Pramod Immaneni 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 >>> >>> > > Thank you, > > Vlad >
