This is not a great vote proposal for several reasons: * "Use the current layout" is ambiguous, because it is inconsistent (it is now partly flat and party hierarchical). * Getting the outcome won't move us much closer to the resolution, given that there are several sub-variants in each option. * We have not laid out advantages, disadvantages, and consequences of each option for everyone to make an informed decision. * It is premature: we haven't tried to reach a consensus or explored alternatives. 3 hours and just a few emails is way too short from a issue being raised to vote call.
I'd suggest to try to find a consensus on the original thread first, and call for a vote if/when needed. On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Amit Sela <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for Option2 > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:09 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > As said in my previous e-mail, just proposed PR #416. > > > > Let's start a vote for groupId and artifactId naming. > > > > [ ] Option1: use the current layout (multiple groupId, artifactId > > relative to groupId) > > [ ] Option2: use unique org.apache.beam groupId and rename artifactId > > with a prefix (beam-parent/apache-beam, flink-runner, spark-runner, etc) > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On 06/03/2016 01:03 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > > Hi Max, > > > > > > I discussed with Davor yesterday. Basically, I proposed: > > > > > > 1. To rename all parent with a prefix (beam-parent, > flink-runner-parent, > > > spark-runner-parent, etc). > > > 2. For the groupId, I prefer to use different groupId, it's clearer to > > > me, and it's exactly the usage of the groupId. Some projects use a > > > single groupId (spark, hadoop, etc), others use multiple (camel, karaf, > > > activemq, etc). I prefer different groupIds but ok to go back to single > > > one. > > > > > > Anyway, I'm preparing a PR to introduce a new Maven module: > > > "distribution". The purpose is to address both BEAM-319 (first) and > > > BEAM-320 (later). It's where we will be able to define the different > > > distributions we plan to publish (source and binaries). > > > > > > Regards > > > JB > > > > > > On 06/03/2016 11:02 AM, Maximilian Michels 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 > > > > > > > -- > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > [email protected] > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > >
