You can create patch then ask for VOTE as needed but with a lot of work involved I think it would be better to get some kind of agreement of the proposed solution before continuing.
- Henry On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Sebastian Schelter <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ufuk, > > It is up to the project where to vote upfront before working on a code > change or whether to do it afterwards. > > --sebastian > > > > 2014-09-03 15:55 GMT-07:00 Ufuk Celebi <[email protected]>: > >> Hey Daniel, >> >> I am sure that Till didn't try to set up the vote towards his desired >> outcome. Actually it should conform to the Apache Voting Process. >> >> Quoting from http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html: >> >> "Expressing Votes: +1, 0, -1, and Fractions >> >> The voting process in Apache may seem more than a little weird if you've >> never encountered it before. Votes are represented as numbers between -1 >> and +1, with '-1' meaning 'no' and '+1' meaning 'yes.' >> >> [...] >> >> +0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with this.' >> -0: 'I won't get in the way, but I'd rather we didn't do this.' >> >> [...] >> >> Vetos >> >> A code-modification proposal may be stopped dead in its tracks by a -1 vote >> by a qualified voter. This constitutes a veto, and it cannot be overruled >> nor overridden by anyone. Vetos stand until and unless withdrawn by their >> casters. >> >> To prevent vetos from being used capriciously, they must be accompanied by >> a technical justification showing why the change is bad (opens a security >> exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A veto without a >> justification is invalid and has no weight." >> >> The only thing I'm not sure about is whether "upfront" votes are usual. If >> this was a code modification (PR or commit), the way that this is setup >> should definitely be OK. Maybe a mentor can help with this? >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Daniel Warneke <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > sorry, but I think the way this vote is set up is already biased towards >> > the author’s desired outcome. Two out of the three possible options >> > effectively lead to the switch to Scala. Moreover, the -1 option requires >> > the voter to explain his/her decision, the +1 option does not. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > Daniel >> > >> > >> > Am 03.09.2014 22:58, schrieb Till Rohrmann: >> > >> > In the wake of replacing the current proprietary RPC service with an >> Akka >> >> service, we have to rewrite the JobManager and TaskManager. Akka is >> >> implemented in Scala and offers bindings for Scala as well as Java. >> Since >> >> the implementation using Scala would probably be neater and less >> verbose, >> >> we would like to use Scala for the reimplementation. That would imply >> that >> >> Flink's runtime module would become a mixed Java and Scala project. >> >> >> >> So please vote whether Scala should be used for rewriting the JobManager >> >> and TaskManager or not. >> >> >> >> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. >> >> >> >> [ ] +1 Using Scala for reimplementation >> >> [ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with using Scala >> >> [ ] -1 Do not use Scala because... >> >> >> >> >> > >>
