Do we wanna target this for 0.4.1 or 0.5 release ? On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 10:00 AM, sblackmon <sblack...@apache.org> wrote:
> Agreed - reopened STREAMS-255. > On November 25, 2016 at 2:00:51 PM, Suneel Marthi (smar...@apache.org) > wrote: > > Seems like we have consensus in merging streams-master and streams-project. > If correct, let's target this for 0.5 release. > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Ate Douma <a...@douma.nu> wrote: > > > On 2016-11-14 12:22, Suneel Marthi wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:27 AM, sblackmon <sblack...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On November 11, 2016 at 5:17:11 PM, Matt Franklin ( > >>> m.ben.frank...@gmail.com(mailto:m.ben.frank...@gmail.com)) wrote: > >>> > >>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:12 PM Suneel Marthi wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Why do we have 3 separate projects - Streams-master, Streams-project > >>>>> > >>>> and > >>> > >>>> streams-examples? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> The split between streams-master and streams-project has been there > >>> since > >>> the project started, I think a legacy of how Rave was organized. The > >>> feedback related to naming (that ‘master’ is confusing given the source > >>> code is in git) makes sense to me. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> While it may make sense to keep streams-examples separate from the > >>>>> > >>>> others, > >>> > >>>> what's the reasoning behind keeping separate streams-master and > >>>>> streams-project ? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Keeping the master pom separate from the rest of the project is fairly > >>>> common within Apache. It allows things that don't change often to be > >>>> centralized, such as developer info, etc. I am +1 for keeping it on a > >>>> separate release cycle and +0 for integrating it back into the main > code > >>>> repo. > >>>> > >>>> I’m -1 to separate release cycles - In reality we’re making a change > to > >>> the POM and/or the website, currently organized under streams-master, > >>> every > >>> release cycle, and it would be confusing for developers if the versions > >>> became disconnected. > >>> > >>> > >> I am -1 too for separate release cycles. I can see streams-master being > >> modified/updated on a regular basis, given that most other dependency > >> projects like Spark, Flink etc are on a 2 month minor release cycle and > a > >> 4 > >> month major release cycle (on an average). > >> > > > > Maybe the real problem is that streams-master is modified/updated on a > > regular > > basis. > > > > The original idea was to (only) separate out and centralize the general > > things > > (like issueManagement, licensing, supported java version, developerInfo, > > common/generic plugin configurations, etc.) which should not need to be > > modified > > on a regular basis. And thus also shouldn't need to be released often. > > > > However the master pom now indeed also defines practically all > > dependencies, > > which IMO should not (need to) be defined there. > > > > I've no real problem (+/-0) moving streams-master into streams-project, > > however > > that will then require streams-examples to directly depend on > > streams-project, > > while currently it also uses streams-master as parent. > > > > From a (better) separation of concern I still think using a separate > > streams-master (which by all means can be renamed like to streams-parent) > > would > > be better, certainly to allow and support better modularity and > > independent release cycles of subsets of streams in the future. > > In the current state however there isn't much need for this, yet, and > > separating > > it up again when needed in the future won't be a big deal either. > > > > So therefore +0 if others think this is useful to do now. > > > > Ate > > > > > > > >> In light of the above argument, I think it makes sense to merge > >> streams-master and streams-project. > >> > >> > >> > >>> I’m +1 to merging streams-master into streams-project - I can’t think > of > >>> any reasons that wouldn’t work, it would simplify build, tests, CI, > >>> releases, and documentation. We could start by just moving the pom and > >>> setting the parent of streams-project as a streams-parent.xml within > the > >>> streams-project module and putting everything except for <build> and > >>> <plugins> in the parent. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> IMO, the examples definitely deserve their own repo and release cycle. > >>>> > >>>> I agree. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Presently, we need to build, deploy, verify and validate 3 separate > >>>>> projects for a release to pass, unless I am completely > >>>>> misunderstanding/missing something here I feel streams-master and > >>>>> streams-project can both be one project. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> We don't have to release master unless there is a change to dist > >>>> management, developers, etc. > >>>> > >>>> In reality we’re making a change to the POM and/or the website, > >>> currently > >>> organized under streams-master, every release cycle, and it would be > >>> confusing for developers if the versions became disconnected. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> thoughts? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > >
