Personally, I believe that MXNet jumped the gun on 1.0. It is pretty clear that 
the API is still not entirely stable.

Given that, I would just go with the incompatible change rather than suck up a 
lot of your development time building and supporting bridges and facades and 
potentially introducing new bugs as a result. As an alternative, you could just 
support two independent implementations using the two namespaces for some 
period of time until people can switch to the new one. It's not like it will be 
that difficult for customer's to port their code.

But really this is up to the Scala maintainers to decide what they want to do.

On 3/13/18, 12:01 PM, "kellen sunderland" <kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Maintaining backwards compatibility never results in the prettiest code,
    but it seems pretty desirable here.  There are relatively few files here,
    so I agree there's some risk but I don't think it would take too much
    time.  Feel free to suggest alternatives Christopher.
    
    On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Barber, Christopher <
    christopher.bar...@analog.com> wrote:
    
    > That sounds like a lot of work and it would be easy to get wrong if it is
    > even feasible.
    >
    > On 3/13/18, 11:51 AM, "kellen sunderland" <kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >     I don't know about aliasing a namespace in Scala, but I wonder how
    > hard it
    >     would be to either (1) provide a fascade from the new package to the
    > old
    >     package or (2) keep two copies of the scala code temporarily along
    > with two
    >     copies of the JNI entry points.  In both of these cases we could setup
    >     @deprecated on all public calls to the old package.
    >
    >     On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Nan Zhu <zhunanmcg...@gmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >     > re Chris: I do not have any good idea about this.....
    >     >
    >     > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Chris Olivier <
    > cjolivie...@gmail.com>
    >     > wrote:
    >     >
    >     > > is it possible to somehow alias a namespace in scala
    >     > > in order to maintain backwards compatibility?
    >     > >
    >     > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 7:21 AM Nan Zhu <zhunanmcg...@gmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >     > >
    >     > > > +1
    >     > > >
    >     > > > and additional suggestion is do it ASAP
    >     > > >
    >     > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Chris Olivier <
    > cjolivie...@gmail.com
    >     > >
    >     > > > wrote:
    >     > > >
    >     > > > > not sure I understand. How could changing a java namespace
    >     > (effectively
    >     > > > > moving the files to a different location as well as changing
    > the
    >     > > package
    >     > > > > names) be backward-compatible?
    >     > > > >
    >     > > > >
    >     > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:02 PM Steffen Rochel <
    >     > > steffenroc...@gmail.com
    >     > > > >
    >     > > > > wrote:
    >     > > > >
    >     > > > > > I suggest the vote should call out if the change is breaking
    >     > backward
    >     > > > > > compatibility or not.
    >     > > > > > I looked through the scala name changing thread and don't 
see
    >     > > > > justification
    >     > > > > > for a backward incompatible change.
    >     > > > > > I do agree it would be good to change the name space, but
    > have not
    >     > > > seen a
    >     > > > > > reason why the change has to be made now in backward
    > incompatible
    >     > > way.
    >     > > > > > Non-binding vote:
    >     > > > > > +1 for backward compatible namespace change
    >     > > > > > -1 for backward incompatible namespace change
    >     > > > > >
    >     > > > > > Suggest to explore package aliasing for a backward 
compatible
    >     > change
    >     > > -
    >     > > > > see
    >     > > > > > a possible idea at
    >     > > > > >
    >     > > > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/28238520/python-
    >     > > > > like-package-name-aliasing-in-scala
    >     > > > > >
    >     > > > > >
    >     > > > > > Steffen
    >     > > > > >
    >     > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Rahul Huilgol <
    >     > > rahulhuil...@gmail.com
    >     > > > >
    >     > > > > > wrote:
    >     > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > +1
    >     > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > We need to change the namespace as soon as possible.
    >     > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Roshani Nagmote <
    >     > > > > > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com>
    >     > > > > > > wrote:
    >     > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > +1 to change the namespace
    >     > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:05 PM, Chris Olivier <
    >     > > > > cjolivie...@gmail.com>
    >     > > > > > > > wrote:
    >     > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > The assumption is that it would be changed 
more-or-less
    >     > > > > immediately.
    >     > > > > > > ie.
    >     > > > > > > > > this is like a voted PR, I guess.
    >     > > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Chris Olivier <
    >     > > > > > cjolivie...@gmail.com>
    >     > > > > > > > > wrote:
    >     > > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > > It is about changing the namespace.  As far as I
    > know, the
    >     > > > > version
    >     > > > > > > > number
    >     > > > > > > > > > of the next release is not defined.
    >     > > > > > > > > > At such point where a release is announced, one 
could
    >     > > comment,
    >     > > > > vote
    >     > > > > > > > > > whatever on the chosen version of that release, I
    > suppose.
    >     > > But
    >     > > > > > > that's
    >     > > > > > > > > > beyond the scope of this vote, because the "next
    > release"
    >     > is
    >     > > > not
    >     > > > > > yet
    >     > > > > > > > > > defined.
    >     > > > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Marco de Abreu <
    >     > > > > > > > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote:
    >     > > > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> Just for clarification: Is this vote about changing
    > the
    >     > > > > namespace
    >     > > > > > > with
    >     > > > > > > > > the
    >     > > > > > > > > >> next release?
    >     > > > > > > > > >>
    >     > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 7:16 PM, Naveen Swamy <
    >     > > > > mnnav...@gmail.com
    >     > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > wrote:
    >     > > > > > > > > >>
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > Chris, Thanks for starting this vote.
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > This is long pending
    >     > > > > > > > > >> >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > +1 to change org.apache namespace
    >     > > > > > > > > >> >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Marco de Abreu 
<
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote:
    >     > > > > > > > > >> >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > I gave my +1 for the code modification. The -1
    > was for
    >     > > Nan
    >     > > > > > Zhus
    >     > > > > > > > > >> proposal
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > to
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > get it into 1.2.
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Chris Olivier 
<
    >     > > > > > > > > cjolivie...@gmail.com
    >     > > > > > > > > >> >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you're tying this to a process issue, then
    > it's
    >     > no
    >     > > > > > longer a
    >     > > > > > > > > code
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > modification technical vote.
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Marco de
    > Abreu <
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote:
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Right
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com>
    > schrieb am
    >     > > Mo.,
    >     > > > > 12.
    >     > > > > > > > März
    >     > > > > > > > > >> 2018,
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > 17:38:
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Are you saying your vote is contingent
    > upon the
    >     > > > > outcome
    >     > > > > > > of a
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > separate
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > vote?
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Marco de
    > Abreu
    >     > <
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote:
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > +1 for changing the namespace
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -1 for merging this change into master
    >     > according
    >     > > > to
    >     > > > > > the
    >     > > > > > > > > >> current
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > policy
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com>
    > schrieb
    >     > > am
    >     > > > > Mo.,
    >     > > > > > > 12.
    >     > > > > > > > > >> März
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > 2018,
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 17:34:
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Release versioning is a separate
    > issue or
    >     > > vote.
    >     > > > > At
    >     > > > > > > > > release
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > time,
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > people
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > can "demand" version X or Y.  This
    > vote
    >     > > > represents
    >     > > > > > "do
    >     > > > > > > > we
    >     > > > > > > > > >> want
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > to
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > change
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the namespace".
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Nan
    > Zhu <
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > zhunanmcg...@gmail.com
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I think we'd specify it will change
    > in the
    >     > > > next
    >     > > > > > > > version
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > (1.2)?
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:26 AM,
    > Chris
    >     > > > Olivier <
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > cjolivie...@gmail.com>
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > This vote is for the code-change
    > of
    >     > > altering
    >     > > > > the
    >     > > > > > > > Scala
    >     > > > > > > > > >> API
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > namespace
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > from
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > dmlc to org.apache.
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Vote will conclude on Thursday,
    > 5pm PDT.
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Thank you,
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -Chris
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >> >
    >     > > > > > > > > >>
    >     > > > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > >
    >     > > > > > > --
    >     > > > > > > Rahul Huilgol
    >     > > > > > >
    >     > > > > >
    >     > > > >
    >     > > >
    >     > >
    >     >
    >
    >
    >
    

Reply via email to