On just voting part, I remain -1 on both options Thks Amol
E:a...@datatorrent.com | M: 510-449-2606 | Twitter: @*amolhkekre* www.datatorrent.com On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pra...@datatorrent.com> wrote: > I think we should take this discussion to a separate thread as it is a vote > thread. I don't see a need for this change now as there isn't enough > justification (such as things are falling apart without this) for the > disruption it will cause. My earlier point is that there was a > justification when the project started to change the groupid and it is not > the same now. > > Thanks > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Do you mean that prior to groupId change nobody was using that groupId or > > that nobody was using the library itself :)? If nobody was using the > > library, the version 3.x at the beginning of the project is questionable. > > > > My question is why -1 (veto) as long as things won't fall apart either > way. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Vlad > > > > > > On 8/22/17 14:09, Pramod Immaneni wrote: > > > >> The groupId change was done at the beginning of the project about two > >> years > >> ago before there was an apex release for anyone to use. > >> > >> 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 > >>> > >>> > > > > Thank you, > > > > Vlad > > >
