+1 for package renaming
+1 for sooner than later
On 3/09/2016 2:46 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
+1 For renaming the packages. It would be really nice to graduate ASAP! Is
there anything else from a code perspective that we need to do before
graduation? If so we should also get that in 1.0.
It would be nice to get a few more examples in the codebase for 1.0. We
should probably just generally review the documentation we're shipping with
1.0. Actually, it would be nice if the docs hosted on
http://geode.docs.pivotal.io/ could get incorporated as well (I think
pivotal is still planning on donating those docs?), but I don't think we
should hold up 1.0 or graduation based on that.
We should probably review our dependencies and update anything that's out
of date for 1.0.
We should also coordinate the package renaming with Spring Data Geode.
-Dan
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Greg Chase <g...@gregchase.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote:
with one exception: we need to rename our source packages to
‘org.apache.geode’ [3].
I think we should move forward with package renaming *now* and include
that in the scope for the 1.0.0-incubating release.
As previously discussed [4] we’d like to preserve protocol compatibility
for existing users of client/server and WAN. This should only affect a
handful of classes that would remain in the ‘com.gemstone.gemfire’
namespace (we should identify those soon).
Agreed. Now is the time. Later is always worse then now when it occurs.
