On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:27 PM Steve Blackmon <st...@blackmon.org> wrote:
> This could be a breaking change to dependent projects. > > For example, if your internal streams repo's parent pom is streams-master > and streams-master suddenly disappears in the latest release, that’s going > to take some refactoring to fix. > > Additionally, there’s significant impact to poms, to documentation, to > Jenkins, to the project website build and deployment process. > > For these reason I think it should not be rushed into a maintenance > release. > I am still curious why the master file is changing so often... > > Steve > > On November 26, 2016 at 1:22:23 PM, Suneel Marthi (suneel.mar...@gmail.com > ) > wrote: > > 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? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
