Totally agree on discussing this ;-) I think Davor was just suggesting we lay out all options and understand them before calling for a vote between them.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > The purpose of the vote is to get a consensus actually. > > We have two options expressed on the mailing list: the current "layout" is > good IMHO but all don't agree. So, let's put things on the table and move > forward. The vote is a way of discussing. It's not a vote for the release, > it's a vote/discussion for the layout and Maven coordinates (so not a > formal vote). > > Just to remember: all should be discussed and informed on the mailing list. > > Regards > JB > > > On 06/03/2016 06:50 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > >> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
