+1 for Taylor's approach as well. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Bill Graham <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 for that approach, thanks Taylor. > > > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 10:47 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Another thing to keep in mind is that non-Apache release artifacts cannot > > be hosted on ASF infrastructure. Even so, non-Apache releases can be cut > > from an ASF-hosted git repository. Non-Apache releases also need to be > > clearly labeled as such. > > > > In terms of moving from “com.twitter” to “org.apache” maven group names > > and source code package names, I would highly recommend making the maven > > group name change as well as changing the package names. > > > > As Jerry pointed out, Storm waited a long time to change package names to > > “org.apache.storm” (maven group name change was immediate). One of the > > reasons we were able to do this is because the original package name was > > “backtype” as opposed to “com.backtype”. I wouldn’t be surprised if there > > were IPMC pushback on making an Apache release with the “com.twitter” > > package prefix. You’d likely need a compelling justification for not > making > > the change. > > > > In short, my recommendations: > > > > 1. Move to Apache git — you can still do non-Apache releases > > 2. Change groupId/package prefixes to “org.apache.*” prior to attempting > > an Apache release. > > > > -Taylor > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 2017, at 7:32 PM, Julien Le Dem <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Sorry for the late reply. > > > +1 to moving to apache git first. > > > +1 on using gitbox so that the github repo is writable. That should > > > simplify a lot of things. > > > When we migrated parquet, we first moved the code to apache git and > only > > > later renamed packages to the new org.apache.parquet namespace. > > > For java artifacts. I'd recommend renaming packages and maven group in > > the > > > same release to avoid weird dependency conflicts (you don't want 2 > maven > > > artifacts with different coordinates but same class name). If you > follow > > > this convention, you force yourself to post org.apache maven artifacts > > only > > > once you rename your packages. > > > We still did a few twitter releases while the projects was not ready > yet > > to > > > make apache release (updating the build, notice, etc). It is ok but it > > must > > > be very clear that those are not official apache releases. Official > > Apache > > > releases must be voted on by the PMC (and the IPMC in the incubator). > And > > > you need to make sure you're still mking progress towards apache > official > > > releases which is the point of the incubation. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> I don't believe the location of the code influences the type of > release > > >> allowed. For example, I believe the Parquet project to did a > non-Apache > > >> release after migrating. Maybe Julien can confirm that. Or > Jake/another > > can > > >> reconfirm/refute my memory. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Bill Graham <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Jacques, I was under the impression that once the code was imported > to > > >>> apache, releases had to be apache releases. This would require 1 and > a > > >>> number of other changes. Is that not the case? The motivation for > > doing 1 > > >>> first was so we could continue to cut releases as needed during that > > >>> effort. > > >>> > > >>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 7:41 AM Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> I'm -0 on plan. > > >>>> > > >>>> Why not just import code then do changes 1 and 2 after 3? Just seems > > >> like > > >>>> getting 3 done is a key blocking item on forward progress of the > > >>> community. > > >>>> > > >>>> On Oct 27, 2017 3:16 PM, "Sanjeev Kulkarni" <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> +1 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Bill Graham <[email protected] > > > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Any other comments on this proposal from Heron developers? The > next > > >>>>> podling > > >>>>>> report is due on Wednesday so we should address our plan. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 3:38 PM, John D. Ament < > > >>> [email protected]> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If you do in fact want to use gitbox (which allows you to have > > >>> github > > >>>>>>> writable repos), infra will need to be made an admin on your > > >>>>> organization > > >>>>>>> temporarily to do the migration. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Many new projects are doing this, so it's not uncommon to just > > >> use > > >>>>> gitbox > > >>>>>>> since you're already on github. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> John > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On 2017-10-19 13:20, Brian Hatfield <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Thank you both for the info :-) I had not realized it would > > >> just > > >>> be > > >>>>>>>> re-homed in a different Github org. Thanks! > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Brian > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Bill Graham < > > >>>> [email protected]> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Right, it would still be on github, just at apache/heron > > >>> instead > > >>>> of > > >>>>>>>>> twitter/heron. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 8:16 AM Jake Farrell < > > >>>> [email protected]> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Apache git can also refer to the Github Apache org as a > > >>> number > > >>>> of > > >>>>>>>>> projects > > >>>>>>>>>> are running in that fashion. They key is that the code has > > >>> been > > >>>>>>> imported > > >>>>>>>>>> over to the Apache Infra owned/managed infrastructure > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> -Jake > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Brian Hatfield < > > >>>>>>> [email protected]> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Silly question - and apologies if this has already been > > >>>>> discussed > > >>>>>> - > > >>>>>>> but > > >>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>> #3 (Migrate the code to Apache git) required? From my > > >>>>> perspective > > >>>>>>> Github > > >>>>>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>>>>> much more preferable as it's where nearly every other open > > >>>>> source > > >>>>>>>>> codebase > > >>>>>>>>>>> I interact with is, and the UI is very friendly to > > >>> newcomers. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Bill Graham < > > >>>>>> [email protected] > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In LEGAL-339 < > > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-339 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> it was > > >>>>>>>>>>>> concluded that we can in fact move the code to Apache > > >> git > > >>>> and > > >>>>>> cut > > >>>>>>>>> Apache > > >>>>>>>>>>>> releases without the SGA. I propose we move forward on > > >>>> that. I > > >>>>>>> suggest > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>> following plan: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.a Refactor all Heron build dependencies (mainly c++ > > >>> libs) > > >>>> to > > >>>>>> be > > >>>>>>>>>>> fetched > > >>>>>>>>>>>> at build time and not committed in the repo. (#2092 > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/twitter/heron/issues/2092>) > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.b Refactor the bazel checkstyles to support both the > > >>>> Twitter > > >>>>>>>>> copyright > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (for existing code) and the Apache copyright (for new > > >> code > > >>>>> after > > >>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>>>>> migration). > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Cut the last non-Apache release. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Migrate the code to Apache git > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Add incubation disclaimer > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Cut the first Apache release. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> What do folks think of that plan? Item's 1a and 1b can > > >>>> happen > > >>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>>> parallel, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> as could item 2 actually. There will surely be more > > >>> smaller > > >>>>>>> items, but > > >>>>>>>>>>>> those are the big ones as I see it. Please chime in if > > >>> I've > > >>>>>>> overlooked > > >>>>>>>>>>>> anything major. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> thanks, > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Bill > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Sent from Gmail Mobile > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
