it’s wonderful ：）
> On Nov 20, 2018, at 2:02 PM, Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Pack has two means as a noun, we could tell a good story with it :)
> 1. a group of wild animals, especially wolves, living and hunting together.
> 2. a small cardboard or paper container and the items contained within it.
>
>
> Willem Jiang
>
> Twitter: willemjiang
> Weibo: 姜宁willem
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:09 PM 赵俊 <zhaoju...@jd.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have’t understand pack meaning before, thanks for explain.
>> I think pack which represents feature enhance like windows service pack at
>> first time.
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 11:32 AM, Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Cherry，
>>>
>>> servicecomb-saga-actuator is just for the centrical saga implementation.
>>> We will rename the servicecomb-saga to servicecomb-pack, as I prefer
>>> the name of pack which shows the spirit of DTS (Distributed
>>> Transaction Service), Omega report the status, and the Alpha take the
>>> control of everything.
>>>
>>> Willem Jiang
>>>
>>> Twitter: willemjiang
>>> Weibo: 姜宁willem
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 11:21 AM cherrylzhao <zhaoju...@126.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Willem
>>>>
>>>> I think servicecomb-dts or servicecomb-dtx is better.
>>>> And we can keep the old saga package same as before.
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let me know what your think about this. Either way I will
>>>>> start a vote for the repository change shortly this week.
>>>>>
>>>>> Willem Jiang
>>>>>
>>>>> Twitter: willemjiang
>>>>> Weibo: 姜宁willem
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:57 AM Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now the Saga 0.2.x branch is ready for the release, we will start the
>>>>>> rename process after the release.
>>>>>> At the meantime I planning to create new git repo
>>>>>> servicecomb-saga-actuator to host the old saga implementation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Willem Jiang
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Twitter: willemjiang
>>>>>> Weibo: 姜宁willem
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:32 PM Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agree we need the migration document for it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are lots change in the 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT, if we want the user use
>>>>>>> the new added transports, we may need to back port those patch to
>>>>>>> 0.2.0 branch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Willem Jiang
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Twitter: willemjiang
>>>>>>> Weibo: 姜宁willem
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:29 PM Zheng Feng <zh.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> 于2018年11月14日周三 下午5:13写道：
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think we can keep the annotation there , but mark it as deprecated
>>>>>>>>> and add the new annotation there. So there could be a very big change
>>>>>>>>> on the customer project.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree that could be a problem with upgrading from the old version
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> should be very clear explain in the documentation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We could consider to remove the old implementation in the Pack 0.4.0
>>>>>>>>> release. Beside the the package rename, we also need to rename the
>>>>>>>>> artifacts group id.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think we need to change the major version if we rename the package
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> group id.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or we can do the 0.2.x release for new added transport components.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 0.2.x ? sorry, I think we are in 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT currently.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Willem Jiang
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Twitter: willemjiang
>>>>>>>>> Weibo: 姜宁willem
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 2:22 PM Zheng Feng <zh.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> comments inline,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> 于2018年11月14日周三 上午10:39写道：
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As we discussed, Here is the proposal of the github rename for the
>>>>>>>>>>> distribute transaction
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Rename servicecomb-saga -> servicecomb-pack to keep all the
>>>>>>>>>>> starts,
>>>>>>>>>>> and we need to rename the package name to pack.
>>>>>>>>>>> If the user use the old link of saga, it will be redirect to
>>>>>>>>>>> servicecomb-pack
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If we rename the package, it will break the compatible of the java
>>>>>>>>>> annotations ? How about the next release plan ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Create a new github repo servicecomb-saga-engine to remain the old
>>>>>>>>> saga
>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It looks good to me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Any thought? If it is OK , I will start a vote for it at the end of
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> week.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Willem Jiang
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter: willemjiang
>>>>>>>>>>> Weibo: 姜宁willem
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:22 PM Willem Jiang
>>>>>>>>>>> <willem.ji...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, I just create a JIRA[1] for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SCB-976
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Willem Jiang
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter: willemjiang
>>>>>>>>>>>> Weibo: 姜宁willem
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:34 PM Zheng Feng <zh.f...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Willem,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you create a JIRA for this moving and it could make it much
>>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the description ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> 于2018年10月23日周二 下午9:04写道：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we put them all together, we cannot name it as Saga. It could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse the user.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I don't want to rename the Saga repo, as lot of people
>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Willem Jiang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter: willemjiang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Weibo: 姜宁willem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:45 PM bismy <bi...@qq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we put them all in one project so that we can release all
>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can separate them in different modules in saga project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can use SAGA as the name for this project which
>>>>>>>>>>> implements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BASE transactions(saga, tcc, etc. ) although saga is one of
>>>>>>>>> them in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> history.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 发件人: "willem.jiang"<willem.ji...@gmail.com>;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 发送时间: 2018年10月23日(星期二) 晚上7:31
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 收件人: "dev"<dev@servicecomb.apache.org>;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 主题: Re: Is saga named right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that is exactly what I'm thinking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The new git repo could be Pack, we can implement different
>>>>>>>>>>> Transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protocal there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the current Saga code could have a dependency of it or we
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move the Pack related code to Pack repo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Willem Jiang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter: willemjiang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Weibo: 姜宁willem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:28 PM Zheng Feng <zh.f...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the core implementation of TCC and Saga (Pack) have
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things, such as the similar annotations and the event names.
>>>>>>>>> So
>>>>>>>>>>> does it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sense to have the common core module to implement the
>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context, transaction event and the grpc communication
>>>>>>>>> protocol ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And we could provide the different APIs or annotations for
>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TCC and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Saga or maybe the other distribute transaction protocol.
>>>>>>>>>>> Also we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make a new roadmap to make it as a framework used in the
>>>>>>>>>>> microservice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve the transaction things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I totally agree with Willem to separate the TCC and
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Saga
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the first step. And what is the next ? Maybe we need a new
>>>>>>>>>>> name for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repo ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zheng Feng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> 于2018年10月23日周二
>>>>>>>>> 下午2:54写道：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Team，
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As TCC is quite different with the Saga implementation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm planning to move the Pack code and TCC related code
>>>>>>>>> out of
>>>>>>>>>>> Saga
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this way we can just keep Saga repo to have the
>>>>>>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for Saga.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thought？
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Willem Jiang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter: willemjiang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Weibo: 姜宁willem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:27 PM Willem Jiang <
>>>>>>>>>>> willem.ji...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, once we plan to support the TCC in the Saga
>>>>>>>>> project ,
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider to rename the project name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current we have two different implementation of Saga,
>>>>>>>>> one is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saga, the other is based the Pack (Omega/Alpha).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we implement the TCC protocol on top of Pack
>>>>>>>>>>> architecture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we can rearrange the package name base on this
>>>>>>>>>>> Architecture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move the Pack code to another repo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thought?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Willem Jiang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter: willemjiang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Weibo: 姜宁willem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:09 PM fu chengeng <
>>>>>>>>>>> oliug...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as we all knows that,saga is a kind of transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement,And we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> named this project as saga because we support only this
>>>>>>>>> kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But now,we are going to support tcc, and maybe many
>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction agreement like xa will be supported.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether we should change saga to other name to
>>>>>>>>> prevent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when it is in incubating?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
