Justification is to not mingle small changes with refactoring and not perform refactoring of this kind without adequate discussion. Both was already conveyed on current PR and previous PR.
You did the right thing declaring your intent to merge without just pulling the trigger, but you also need to allow for reasonable time for folks to respond to email. On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Sandesh Hegde <sand...@datatorrent.com> wrote: > Today, I saw the below -1 by Thomas, > https://github.com/apache/apex-malhar/pull/666 without the technical > justification. > > Saumya, PR Author, has created a mail thread to discuss the justification, > but there was no comment in the mail thread. > > So should we consider this as invalid -1? > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:08 AM Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote: > > > For -1 to be valid there *must* be *technical* justification(s) not to > > proceed with the code change. Without such justification -1 is > > considered to be void/invalid [1]. > > > > I don't see any possible *technical* justification not to proceed with > > the package rename as it was done in the past by a large number of > > Apache (and not only Apache) projects and nothing bad happened (no > > performance degradation, no introduction of security vulnerability) and > > projects remained usable by their users. With the current IDEs, it is a > > question of 5 minutes to complete necessary modifications. > > > > Both Apache Felix and Apache Groovy (as well as Apache Apex) are split > > package projects. There is mix and match of org.apache.* and other > > package names (org.osgi, groovy, com.datatorrent). IMO, this is a bad > > practice and I don't think that Apex community should use those projects > > as a best practice examples. Majority of Apache projects consistently > > use org.apache package and IMO that simplifies user and community > > experience. > > > > Majority of malhar library classes are excluded from semantic versioning > > check and are not subject of backward compatibility/stable API > > guarantee. Due to that there never be a good reason to change major > > version as backward incompatible changes are introduced silently and > > without proper semantic versioning. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Vlad > > > > [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > > > On 8/23/17 15:17, Sergey Golovko wrote: > > > -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. > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > Vlad > > >
