+1 for the idea. We need to make sure PMC of Flink maintains knowledge of standard Flink distribution, hence the "flink-contrib" should not be part of the release.
- Henry 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 >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
