-1 for the option 2 I don't think it makes sense to rush to rename the package name. There are Apache Java projects that use the original package names after migration to Apache Software Foundation. For instance,
Apache Felix <https://projects.apache.org/project.html?felix> (org.osgi) Apache Groovy <https://projects.apache.org/project.html?groovy> (groovy) Personally I don't like the idea to rename package names for any existing tools and applications. It can just be a big confusion for users without any real benefits. -1 for the option 1 I see only one valid reason to change the major version now. It is the full refactoring of the code without supporting of any backward compatibility. If we are going to make the package refactoring we need to change the major version. If we are not going to do it now, it does not make sense to change the major version. I don't think it makes sense to vote for the two options separately. Thanks, Sergey On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > So far everyone else has voted +1 on option 1. Your -1 is not a veto > (unlike your previous -1 on a pull request), but your response also states > "I am for option 1" and that you want to have the branch release-3 > included. So why don't you include that into your vote for option 1 as a > condition, since that's what is going to happen anyways. > > Thomas > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Amol Kekre <a...@datatorrent.com> wrote: > > > On just voting part, I remain -1 on both options > > > > Thks > > Amol > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Amol Kekre <a...@datatorrent.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > >
