+1 on Max's comment on naming. I prefer spark-runner and beam-parent as well.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016, 12:03 Maximilian Michels <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for getting us ready for the first release, Davor! We would > like to fix BEAM-315 next week. Is there already a timeline for the > first release? If so, we could also address this in a minor release. > Releasing often will give us some experience with our release process > :) > > I would like everyone to think about the artifact names and group ids > again. "parent" and "flink" are not very suitable names for the Beam > parent or the Flink Runner artifact (same goes for the Spark Runner). > I'd prefer "beam-parent", "flink-runner", and "spark-runner" as > artifact ids. > > One might think of Maven GroupIds as a sort of hierarchy but they're > not. They're just an identifier. Renaming the parent pom to > "apache-beam" or "beam-parent" would give us the old naming scheme > which used flat group ids (before [1]). > > In the end, I guess it doesn't matter too much if we document the > naming schemes accordingly. What matters is that we use a consistent > naming scheme. > > Cheers, > Max > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-287 > > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Actually, I think we can fix both issue in one commit. > > > > What do you think about renaming the main parent POM with: > > groupId: org.apache.beam > > artifactId: apache-beam > > > > ? > > > > Thanks to that, the source distribution will be named > > apache-beam-xxx-sources.zip and it would be clearer to dev. > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > > On 06/02/2016 03:10 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > >> > >> Another annoying thing is the main parent POM artifactId. > >> > >> Now, it's just "parent". What do you think about renaming to > >> "beam-parent" ? > >> > >> Regarding the source distribution name, I would cancel this staging to > >> fix that (I will have a PR ready soon). > >> > >> Thoughts ? > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >> On 06/02/2016 03:46 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi everyone! > >>> We've started the release process for our first release, > >>> 0.1.0-incubating. > >>> > >>> To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional > goals > >>> for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's > >>> currently in > >>> the repository, as well as work through the release process. > >>> > >>> With this in mind, we've: > >>> * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272, > >>> * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating, > >>> * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging > >>> repository [2]. > >>> > >>> We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified > >>> a few > >>> issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a > >>> peek > >>> and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible > >>> before we > >>> start the voting process. > >>> > >>> Please let us know if you see any issues. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Davor > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating > >>> [2] > >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/ > >>> > >> > > > > -- > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > [email protected] > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
