+1 Great proposal! On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 1:37 PM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well it is not really a rule for a proposal but notice that there are > people in different time zones or people that for different reasons > cannot answer immediately, so a longer period could give them a chance > to voice their opinions. > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:23 PM, Robert Burke <[email protected]> wrote: > > That's good to know! > > I had heard of that specific rule, but I didn't realized it pertained to > > filing of a JIRA issue (when related to a proposal) as well. > > Thank you. > > > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 at 13:08 Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> +1 Nice idea and proposal. > >> > >> This was not a vote thread but for the future it is a good idea to let > >> a bigger time window before reaching consensus. > >> Notice that a formal vote lets at least 72h for participants to voice > >> their opinion before concluding something. > >> > >> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 6:29 PM, Robert Burke <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > This seems like enough consensus to file the JIRA, so > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-4115 has now been created. > >> > > >> > I'll get to work on the PRs shortly. > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > Robert Burke > >> > > >> > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 at 03:52 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> +1 > >> >> > >> >> Agree > >> >> Regards > >> >> JB > >> >> Le 18 avr. 2018, à 14:51, Aljoscha Krettek <[email protected]> a > >> >> écrit: > >> >>> > >> >>> +1 this sounds super reasonable > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> On 17. Apr 2018, at 20:11, Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> This seems like a valuable layer of indirection to establish. The > >> >>> mechanisms are pretty esoteric, but I trust Gophers to know the best > >> >>> way to > >> >>> do it. Commented just a smidgin on the doc. > >> >>> > >> >>> Kenn > >> >>> > >> >>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 4:57 PM Robert Burke <[email protected]> > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Hi All! > >> >>>> While the Go SDK is still experimental, that doesn't mean it > >> >>>> shouldn't > >> >>>> be future proofed. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Go has the ability to specify custom import paths for a prefix of > >> >>>> packages. This has benefits of avoiding generic GitHub paths, and > >> >>>> avoids > >> >>>> breaking users in the event of infrastructure events such as moving > >> >>>> off of > >> >>>> GitHub, or even splitting the repo into per language components. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Currently users need to import paths like: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> import "github.com/apache/beam/sdks/go/pkg/beam/io/textio" > >> >>>> > >> >>>> to get at SDK packages. If we implement this proposal, they would > >> >>>> look > >> >>>> like: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> import "beam.apache.org/sdks/go/pkg/beam/io/textio" > >> >>>> > >> >>>> which are a bit shorter, a bit more stable, and a bit nicer, with > the > >> >>>> benefits outlined above. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I wrote a doc with details which is at > >> >>>> https://s.apache.org/go-beam-vanity-import > >> >>>> (Thanks you Thomas for short linking it for me.) > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The doc should answer most of your questions, but please let me > know > >> >>>> if > >> >>>> you have others either here, or in a doc comment. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> If there's consensus to do so, it would be better it's done sooner > >> >>>> rather than after folks begin depending on it. We wouldn't want to > >> >>>> have > >> >>>> fragmented examples. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Robert Burke > >> >>>> (One of the Gopher Googlers who have been quietly lurking on the > >> >>>> list, > >> >>>> and submitting the occasional PR for the Go SDK. I look forward to > >> >>>> working > >> >>>> with you all!) > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> > >
