The namespace change is the first thing that's done for most projects that come to apache incubation
How many production deployments of MXNet Scala API are out there --- 3 ? 2 ? 1.7643 ? I would think its barely a handful of them. Agree with Christopher Barber that MXNEt jumped the gun with 1.0 and its best now to suck up a breaking change. +1 binding On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 12:26 PM, Chris Olivier <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not taking a side here, but just please consider that if you have two > separate implementations for awhile, the newer one will start to diverge > and over time, it will become harder and harder for the user to port his > code. You may find yourself supporting the old code for much longer than > you anticipated (especially if changed go into the old implementation). > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:11 AM, Barber, Christopher < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > 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" <[email protected]> > > 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 < > > [email protected]> 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" < > > [email protected]> > > > 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 < > [email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > re Chris: I do not have any good idea about this..... > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Chris Olivier < > > > [email protected]> > > > > 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 < > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > and additional suggestion is do it ASAP > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Chris Olivier < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We need to change the namespace as soon as > possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Roshani Nagmote < > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to change the namespace > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:05 PM, Chris Olivier < > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > 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 > < > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> 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 > > < > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > > > > > > > > > > > >> > [email protected]> 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 < > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > 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 < > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Right > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Chris Olivier < > [email protected]> > > > 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 > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > +1 for changing the namespace > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -1 for merging this change into > > master > > > > according > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > >> current > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > policy > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Chris Olivier < > > [email protected]> > > > 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 < > > > > > > > > > > > >> > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 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 < > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
