Bahir is now creating a second repository "bahir-flink" for our connectors: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-12440
If there are no objections here on the dev list, I would like to move the "flume" and "redis" streaming connector to Bahir. Once they are in, and the file structure at Bahir exists, I'll update our contribution guidelines to point people to Bahir. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I just wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion at the Bahir > dev list [1]. They seem to be very open to give some of our streaming > connectors a new home. > We are currently discussing some specifics there (whether to put the code > into the same repository or into separate ones). Also, they asked for some > help by Flink committers / contributors to help with the reviewing of > incoming contributions. > I'm definitively willing to help out to give the community there a good > start. > > > [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@bahir.apache.org/msg00357.html > > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> Hi Robert, >> >> We had this discussion before when I suggested to use an external >> repository to manage connectors. Ever since I have come to the >> conclusion that the overhead of maintaining two source repositories >> along with maintaining code and integration, documentation, and CI, is >> not worth the effort. Thanks for bringing up the discussion again. >> >> I think the most important issues with moving connectors out of the >> core repository are >> >> 1) Maintenance >> Connectors need to be maintained. Otherwise, they are worthless. >> >> 2) Plugability >> Connectors need to be easy to use for the user. Otherwise, nobody will >> use them. >> >> What is the difference between #1, #3 and #4? I don't see a difference >> except that #3 and #4 are central repositories. Still, maintenance and >> plugability are very unclear. >> >> Only #2 is left :) Apache Bahir looks like a promising project. Let's >> see how the community reacts. >> >> Cheers, >> Max >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > Thank you for your responses. I will get in touch with the Bahir >> community >> > to see what they are thinking about this. >> > Once we know a bit more about the details of such a collaboration, we >> can >> > make a final decision here. >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > >> >> I agree with Stephan that the main problem is maintenance overhead for >> the >> >> Flink community. If we could maintain all connectors ourselves then >> there >> >> would not be an immediate need to out source the connectors. Thus, the >> >> solution should reduce the workload for the core project. >> >> >> >> Personally, I would favour option #2 if Apache Bahir is willing to add >> >> Flink as another supported streaming platform. This would give the >> >> streaming connectors a more prominent home than the personal >> repository of >> >> a contributor. >> >> >> >> Furthermore, contributing the connectors to Apache Bahir entails that >> the >> >> connector artifacts are deployed to a central repository (I assume). >> That >> >> way one can more easily add them to one's project instead of having to >> >> build and install the code yourself. >> >> >> >> I'm also not sure what happens to a public github repository which has >> not >> >> been forked and is then deleted. I would assume that the content is >> then >> >> lost. >> >> >> >> To create a "flink-connectors" repository independent of Flink sounds >> quite >> >> similar to creating another Apache Bahir. I think it would be better to >> >> join forces with the existing Bahir community if possible. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Thanks Robert for bringing this up. >> >> > >> >> > I think that "flink-contrib" will not really solve the problem, >> because >> >> the >> >> > connectors would still have to be maintained by the core community, >> we >> >> > would need to guarantee test stability. It will be to a large extend >> >> > similar to adding them to "flink-streaming-connectors", except that >> we >> >> may >> >> > declare via the artifact name that the quality is not guaranteed to >> be >> >> too >> >> > high. >> >> > >> >> > Regarding moving the code to a separate repository: I think that also >> >> only >> >> > solves the problem, if that repository is organizationally different >> from >> >> > the core clink repository. Different release cycles, different >> >> maintainers. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > The quintessence is for me that the connectors need to be handled by >> a >> >> > different organization than the core flink community. >> >> > That would leave us with >> >> > - The contributors' own repository >> >> > - Apache Bahir >> >> > - An organizationally different "flink-connectors" repository, >> possibly >> >> > with different committers / PMC >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai < >> tzuli...@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > Good point. Discussion for each new connector is also an overhead >> we >> >> > should >> >> > > avoid. >> >> > > >> >> > > IMHO, option #2 doesn’t seem like a reasonable staging area. Say we >> >> > decide >> >> > > we’d like to move a connector from Bahir to Flink in the future, >> >> there’ll >> >> > > be two of the connector in separate Apache projects. Personally I >> think >> >> > > option #2 is more like a way to go if some day we’d like to migrate >> >> some >> >> > of >> >> > > our currently supported connectors in Flink to Bahir (perhaps an >> >> > > alternative to the discussion in "Externalizing the Flink >> connectors”). >> >> > > >> >> > > Defining option #1 as a staging area seems nice; the contributor >> >> notifies >> >> > > the Flink community of the work by adding it to the 3rd party >> packages >> >> > > page, and in the future we can contact the contributor to ask >> whether >> >> > > they’d like to migrate the connector to Flink when we see more user >> >> > demand >> >> > > and committer support. >> >> > > >> >> > > With this approach, do you think we should assume that future new >> >> > > connectors always go to option #1 first? If not, I would assume >> that >> >> in >> >> > > the future, Flink JIRAs for new connectors are only opened if we’d >> like >> >> > to >> >> > > add them directly to Flink (perhaps the contribution guideline can >> link >> >> > to >> >> > > Flink development Roadmaps like [1] as a reference to connectors >> that >> >> the >> >> > > community has already considered to support?). >> >> > > >> >> > > [1] >> >> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ExmtVpeVVT3TIhO1JoBpC5JKXm- >> >> > > 778DAD7eqw5GANwE/edit# >> >> > > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ExmtVpeVVT3TIhO1JoBpC5JKXm- >> >> > > 778DAD7eqw5GANwE/edit> >> >> > > >> >> > > On August 9, 2016 at 6:10:21 PM, Robert Metzger ( >> rmetz...@apache.org) >> >> > > wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > Hi Gordon, >> >> > > thank you for your response. >> >> > > >> >> > > I agree with your observation that some "staging" area is helpful >> to >> >> test >> >> > > how many contributors / users are interested in a connector. But I >> >> wonder >> >> > > if #1 or #2 can also serve as a staging area: As soon as we see >> that >> >> > there >> >> > > is a lot of interest in a connector, we add it to the main >> >> > > "flink-*-connectors" directory. >> >> > > Having too many ways to contribute connectors might make the >> >> discussions >> >> > > for each new connector quite complicated. >> >> > > >> >> > > You are right, the intention of the "Externalizing the Flink >> >> connectors” >> >> > > discussion was more about the release intervals, test time etc. >> >> > > >> >> > > Regards, >> >> > > Robert >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > >
