Already tracked by BEAM-78 [1]. As per details there, we planned to postpone this rename just a little bit -- until other code drops have been integrated into the repository, and we have completed the refactoring that will separate the two uses of term Dataflow -- one which needs to change and one that remains. Proceeding right now might make this a little bit harder.
Is this something we are comfortable with? Also, related issue is BEAM-77 which calls for directory reorganization. Max was kind enough to do this from the start for the Flink runner -- we need to do the same for the core SDK pieces. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-78 On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi guys, > > FYI, I'm preparing a PR to cleanup the POMs and reference Beam naming. > > For instance: > - we should use Apache parent POM (it will simplify the release process) > - the name in the pom should mention Beam instead of Google Cloud SDK > - the groupId/artifactId should be org.apache.beam instead of > com.google.cloud.dataflow > - the developer should be the actual developer set (not google) > - the scm should be the Apache git one (not Dataflow on github) > - the legal headers should be Apache 2.0/ASF one > - etc ... > > I'm preparing the PR that I will submit to you for review before pushing. > > Thanks ! > Regards > JB > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
