+1 I think it's good to outsource functionality that is not our main competency. Because of the origins of Flink in research we suffered a bit from NIH in the beginning. I'm happy to see this reduced piece by piece now.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Henry Saputra <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 Vetos stand until and unless withdrawn by their 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... >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>>
