+1 for a package repository in the long run as per Ted's suggestion, and moving forward with what Robert proposes
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> wrote: > I'm also in favor of option 1) with a "flink-contrib" maven module. > > I agree with Ted that we should certainly think about establishing a highly > visible, easy to contribute and easy to use infrastructure for all kinds of > contributions around the project. > But I suspect that we need some time to come up with a good architecture > and infrastructure for that. Maybe this also comes as an outside > contribution to Flink? > > To have something immediately, we should start with a "flink-contrib" > module. > > One thing that I would like to discuss first is a clear set of rules for > contributions into that module. > Code contributions to "flink-contrib" need: > - to be tested on a cluster (not only by single-jvm tests) > - to have test cases (because otherwise we can not guarantee that they > build with our changes > - to be of use for others > - to have some documentation > > I would not deploy the flink-contrib package in the standard flink > distribution. Users will have to add them as a maven dependency. > > > > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 11:02 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > As the community of flink add-ons grows, a CPAN or maven-like mechanism > > might be a nice option. That would let people download and install > > extensions very fluidly. > > > > The argument for making Apache contributions is definitely valid, but the > > argument for the agility of fostering independent projects is that > projects > > can gain lots of popularity very quickly this way. CPAN, CRAN, pip, > maven > > and RubyGems can be argued to be critical components of the popularity of > > Perl, R, Python, Java/Scala and Ruby respectively. > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > I am also more in favor of option 1). > > > > > > 2015-01-24 20:27 GMT+01:00 Kostas Tzoumas <ktzou...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > Thanks Fabian for starting the discussion. > > > > > > > > I would be biased towards option (1) that Stephan highlighted for the > > > > following reasons: > > > > > > > > - A separate github project is one more infrastructure to manage, and > > it > > > > lives outside the ASF. I would like to bring as much code as possible > > to > > > > the Apache Software Foundation, and not divide the codebase into two > > > > separate repositories. > > > > > > > > - The personal gratification (and thus motivation) is higher when > > > > contributing to a top-level Apache project than a github repository > > > > slightly associated with an ASF project. And contributors to the > Flink > > > > project get karma that may lead to new committers, which is crucial > as > > > the > > > > project is growing. > > > > > > > > Of course, non Apache-licensed contributions cannot be accepted. If > we > > > have > > > > a good amount of those, we can start an infrastructure for Flink > > packages > > > > that lives outside the ASF, but I would wait for the need to come > > before > > > > doing this. > > > > > > > > My proposal would be to funnel contributions to the main repository > > (in a > > > > flink-contrib module) for now, including the recent contributions. > > > > > > > > Kostas > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes, a "flink-contrib" project would be great. > > > > > > > > > > We have two options: > > > > > > > > > > 1) Make it part of the flink apache project. > > > > > - PRO this makes it easy to get stuff for users > > > > > - CONTRA this means stronger requirements on the code, blocker > for > > > code > > > > > that uses dependencies under certain licenses, etc. > > > > > > > > > > 2) Make an independent github project. > > > > > - PRO contributions can depended on more licenses, such as LGPL > > > > > - PRO we can have more people that commit to this repo, committers > > can > > > > be > > > > > different from flink committers > > > > > - CONTRA people need to grab the extensions from a different > > location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am slightly biased towards (2), but open to both. > > > > > > > > > > Stephan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Chiwan Park < > chiwanp...@icloud.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think top level maven module called "flink-contrib" is > > reasonable. > > > > > There > > > > > > are other projects having contrib package such as Akka, Django. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, Chiwan Park (Sent with iPhone) > > > > > > > > > > > > 2015. 1. 24. 오후 7:15 Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> 작성: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we got a few contribution requests lately to add cool but > > > "non-core" > > > > > > > features to our API. > > > > > > > In previous discussions, concerns were raised to not bloat the > > APIs > > > > > with > > > > > > > too many "shortcut", "syntactic sugar", or special-case > features. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead we could setup a place to add Input/OutputFormats, > common > > > > > > > operations, etc. which does not need as much control as the > core > > > > APIs. > > > > > > Open > > > > > > > questions are: > > > > > > > - How do we organize it? (top-level maven module, modules in > > > > > flink-java, > > > > > > > flink-scala, java packages in the API modules, ...) > > > > > > > - How do we name it? flink-utils, flink-packages, ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any opinions on this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, Fabian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
