Re: Re: Changing JavaScript SDK NPM Module Name: openwhisk => apache-openwhisk?
James, the way I'm imagining what could be done to update the name: (1) deprecate "openwhisk" module with "npm deprecate" [1] so that everyone gets the warning and (2) publish "apache-openwhisk" with the same version as "openwhisk", and update this one going forward. For (1) we could plug OW graduation in the deprecation message. If NPM displaying the deprecation warning is acceptable for tutorials, docs, blog posts, etc, this could work. [1] - https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/deprecate On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:08 AM Matt Sicker wrote: > It’s likely a topic that is brought up by the board once in a while for > those projects. > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 12:06, James Thomas wrote: > > > I've discovered the Cordova project publishes all their project repos > > without the `apache-` prefix. > > https://www.npmjs.com/search?q=cordova > > > > Same goes for thrift (https://www.npmjs.com/package/thrift). I've > > guess there's precedence that maybe this isn't an issue? > > > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 18:17, Matt Sicker wrote: > > > > > > Most or all of the Apache projects that are distributed on Homebrew > > > <https://brew.sh/> are named apache-foo. > > > > > > ...except for `wsk` and `wskdeploy` which are curiously lacking > > > `apache-` prefixes as well. ;) > > > > > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 12:08, Matt Rutkowski > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I too like the dash approach unless Apache likes having a domain name > > > > style which implies (family) membership hierarchy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Matt Sicker > > > > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > > > > Date: 07/15/2019 12:05 PM > > > > Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Changing JavaScript SDK NPM Module > Name: > > > > openwhisk => apache-openwhisk? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The name with the dash looks nicer, agreed. In migrating from an old > > > > package name to a new one where you already have existing users, I > > > > haven't seen a solution to that myself quite yet, though I know that > > > > Groovy has a similar problem where their packages are still published > > > > under the `org.codehaus.groovy` group id instead of > > > > `org.apache.groovy`. While Maven and NPM are quite different, the > > > > method of migrating a package name is similarly not well-defined in > > > > both systems. > > > > > > > > Does anyone have more info about how NPM runs their repository? Maybe > > > > they can add in some redirects of some sort. > > > > > > > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 11:11, James Thomas > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Reviewing the ASF guidelines on NPM packages to check our JS SDK > > > > satifises > > > > > all the rules[1] - we're supposed to be publishing the NPM package > as > > > > > "apacheopenwhisk" and not "openwhisk". This NPM library was > > published at > > > > ( > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.npmjs.com_package_openwhisk=DwIBaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=6zQLM7Gc0Sv1iwayKOKa4_SFxRIxS478q2gZlAJj4Zw=NilRlnhMriE1MNYQW3S_Ni47FW8uu-CTsXNbM3FYkH8=C-3wIDNjUO6k1tpWW7WQA9d4c-lbe7KshNS1jAR6jxM= > > > > ) before the project was donated to > > > > > Apache. > > > > > > > > > > Moving from the library to publish at `apache-openwhisk` rather > than > > > > > `openwhisk`[2] is not technically challenging (and the new package > > name > > > > is > > > > > available) but will cause numerous issues > > > > > > > > > > I'm asking for comments on what to do about this. Would like to > > engage > > > > the > > > > > ASF mentors for advice as well. What does the community think about > > > > this? > > > > > > > > > > The library has significant usage (NPM tells me the library is > > averaging > > > > 6k > > > > > downloads a week) using the existing package name. GitHub lists 38K > > > > > references to the module. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_search-3Fq-3Drequire-2528-2522openwhisk-2522-2529-26type-3DCode=DwIBaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=6zQLM7Gc0Sv1iwayKOKa4_SFxRIxS478q2gZlAJj4Zw=NilRl
Re: Re: Changing JavaScript SDK NPM Module Name: openwhisk => apache-openwhisk?
It’s likely a topic that is brought up by the board once in a while for those projects. On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 12:06, James Thomas wrote: > I've discovered the Cordova project publishes all their project repos > without the `apache-` prefix. > https://www.npmjs.com/search?q=cordova > > Same goes for thrift (https://www.npmjs.com/package/thrift). I've > guess there's precedence that maybe this isn't an issue? > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 18:17, Matt Sicker wrote: > > > > Most or all of the Apache projects that are distributed on Homebrew > > <https://brew.sh/> are named apache-foo. > > > > ...except for `wsk` and `wskdeploy` which are curiously lacking > > `apache-` prefixes as well. ;) > > > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 12:08, Matt Rutkowski > wrote: > > > > > > I too like the dash approach unless Apache likes having a domain name > > > style which implies (family) membership hierarchy. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Matt Sicker > > > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > > > Date: 07/15/2019 12:05 PM > > > Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Changing JavaScript SDK NPM Module Name: > > > openwhisk => apache-openwhisk? > > > > > > > > > > > > The name with the dash looks nicer, agreed. In migrating from an old > > > package name to a new one where you already have existing users, I > > > haven't seen a solution to that myself quite yet, though I know that > > > Groovy has a similar problem where their packages are still published > > > under the `org.codehaus.groovy` group id instead of > > > `org.apache.groovy`. While Maven and NPM are quite different, the > > > method of migrating a package name is similarly not well-defined in > > > both systems. > > > > > > Does anyone have more info about how NPM runs their repository? Maybe > > > they can add in some redirects of some sort. > > > > > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 11:11, James Thomas > wrote: > > > > > > > > Reviewing the ASF guidelines on NPM packages to check our JS SDK > > > satifises > > > > all the rules[1] - we're supposed to be publishing the NPM package as > > > > "apacheopenwhisk" and not "openwhisk". This NPM library was > published at > > > ( > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.npmjs.com_package_openwhisk=DwIBaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=6zQLM7Gc0Sv1iwayKOKa4_SFxRIxS478q2gZlAJj4Zw=NilRlnhMriE1MNYQW3S_Ni47FW8uu-CTsXNbM3FYkH8=C-3wIDNjUO6k1tpWW7WQA9d4c-lbe7KshNS1jAR6jxM= > > > ) before the project was donated to > > > > Apache. > > > > > > > > Moving from the library to publish at `apache-openwhisk` rather than > > > > `openwhisk`[2] is not technically challenging (and the new package > name > > > is > > > > available) but will cause numerous issues > > > > > > > > I'm asking for comments on what to do about this. Would like to > engage > > > the > > > > ASF mentors for advice as well. What does the community think about > > > this? > > > > > > > > The library has significant usage (NPM tells me the library is > averaging > > > 6k > > > > downloads a week) using the existing package name. GitHub lists 38K > > > > references to the module. > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_search-3Fq-3Drequire-2528-2522openwhisk-2522-2529-26type-3DCode=DwIBaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=6zQLM7Gc0Sv1iwayKOKa4_SFxRIxS478q2gZlAJj4Zw=NilRlnhMriE1MNYQW3S_Ni47FW8uu-CTsXNbM3FYkH8=nIOIJxXhbd1TkXzWJVHx9-NAMQV4JuBsXbm1pEkX8u0= > > > > > > > > > > > All those external dependent projects, blog posts, documentation and > > > > tutorials, etc, that reference the library (and are outside of our > > > control) > > > > will be reliant on the old package name. These will still work (as > the > > > old > > > > library version will still be available from NPM) but never receive > new > > > > versions on installing the dependency. This may eventually mean the > old > > > > library doesn't work with future platform changes and/or lead to > > > security > > > > issues with outdated dependencies. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure if there's any leeway in the allowing the short-name for > > > the > > > > NPM library (given we follow all the
Re: Re: Changing JavaScript SDK NPM Module Name: openwhisk => apache-openwhisk?
I've discovered the Cordova project publishes all their project repos without the `apache-` prefix. https://www.npmjs.com/search?q=cordova Same goes for thrift (https://www.npmjs.com/package/thrift). I've guess there's precedence that maybe this isn't an issue? On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 18:17, Matt Sicker wrote: > > Most or all of the Apache projects that are distributed on Homebrew > <https://brew.sh/> are named apache-foo. > > ...except for `wsk` and `wskdeploy` which are curiously lacking > `apache-` prefixes as well. ;) > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 12:08, Matt Rutkowski wrote: > > > > I too like the dash approach unless Apache likes having a domain name > > style which implies (family) membership hierarchy. > > > > > > > > From: Matt Sicker > > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > > Date: 07/15/2019 12:05 PM > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Changing JavaScript SDK NPM Module Name: > > openwhisk => apache-openwhisk? > > > > > > > > The name with the dash looks nicer, agreed. In migrating from an old > > package name to a new one where you already have existing users, I > > haven't seen a solution to that myself quite yet, though I know that > > Groovy has a similar problem where their packages are still published > > under the `org.codehaus.groovy` group id instead of > > `org.apache.groovy`. While Maven and NPM are quite different, the > > method of migrating a package name is similarly not well-defined in > > both systems. > > > > Does anyone have more info about how NPM runs their repository? Maybe > > they can add in some redirects of some sort. > > > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 11:11, James Thomas wrote: > > > > > > Reviewing the ASF guidelines on NPM packages to check our JS SDK > > satifises > > > all the rules[1] - we're supposed to be publishing the NPM package as > > > "apacheopenwhisk" and not "openwhisk". This NPM library was published at > > ( > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.npmjs.com_package_openwhisk=DwIBaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=6zQLM7Gc0Sv1iwayKOKa4_SFxRIxS478q2gZlAJj4Zw=NilRlnhMriE1MNYQW3S_Ni47FW8uu-CTsXNbM3FYkH8=C-3wIDNjUO6k1tpWW7WQA9d4c-lbe7KshNS1jAR6jxM= > > ) before the project was donated to > > > Apache. > > > > > > Moving from the library to publish at `apache-openwhisk` rather than > > > `openwhisk`[2] is not technically challenging (and the new package name > > is > > > available) but will cause numerous issues > > > > > > I'm asking for comments on what to do about this. Would like to engage > > the > > > ASF mentors for advice as well. What does the community think about > > this? > > > > > > The library has significant usage (NPM tells me the library is averaging > > 6k > > > downloads a week) using the existing package name. GitHub lists 38K > > > references to the module. > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_search-3Fq-3Drequire-2528-2522openwhisk-2522-2529-26type-3DCode=DwIBaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=6zQLM7Gc0Sv1iwayKOKa4_SFxRIxS478q2gZlAJj4Zw=NilRlnhMriE1MNYQW3S_Ni47FW8uu-CTsXNbM3FYkH8=nIOIJxXhbd1TkXzWJVHx9-NAMQV4JuBsXbm1pEkX8u0= > > > > > > > > All those external dependent projects, blog posts, documentation and > > > tutorials, etc, that reference the library (and are outside of our > > control) > > > will be reliant on the old package name. These will still work (as the > > old > > > library version will still be available from NPM) but never receive new > > > versions on installing the dependency. This may eventually mean the old > > > library doesn't work with future platform changes and/or lead to > > security > > > issues with outdated dependencies. > > > > > > I'm not sure if there's any leeway in the allowing the short-name for > > the > > > NPM library (given we follow all the other requirements)? This will be a > > > significant amount of work just changing all the references in project > > we > > > control. > > > > > > If we do change the name - I'd assume `apache-openwhisk` is fine. Using > > > `apacheopenwhisk` is slightly horrid > > > > > > [1] - > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.apache.org_confluence_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D109454613=DwIBaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=6zQLM7Gc0Sv1iwayKOKa4_SFxRIxS478q2gZlAJj4Zw=NilRlnhMriE1MNYQW3S_Ni47FW8uu-CTsXNbM3FYkH8=ZshMeW40IVmdVpBrfK3b_ERcnaA4Bh7h3iqXvO_NDCc= > > > > > [2] - following NPM JS module conventions - apache-openwhisk is much > > > preferable than a single word (apacheopenwhisk). > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > James Thomas > > > > > > > > -- > > Matt Sicker > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Matt Sicker -- Regards, James Thomas
Re: Re: Changing JavaScript SDK NPM Module Name: openwhisk => apache-openwhisk?
Most or all of the Apache projects that are distributed on Homebrew <https://brew.sh/> are named apache-foo. ...except for `wsk` and `wskdeploy` which are curiously lacking `apache-` prefixes as well. ;) On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 12:08, Matt Rutkowski wrote: > > I too like the dash approach unless Apache likes having a domain name > style which implies (family) membership hierarchy. > > > > From: Matt Sicker > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org > Date: 07/15/2019 12:05 PM > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Changing JavaScript SDK NPM Module Name: > openwhisk => apache-openwhisk? > > > > The name with the dash looks nicer, agreed. In migrating from an old > package name to a new one where you already have existing users, I > haven't seen a solution to that myself quite yet, though I know that > Groovy has a similar problem where their packages are still published > under the `org.codehaus.groovy` group id instead of > `org.apache.groovy`. While Maven and NPM are quite different, the > method of migrating a package name is similarly not well-defined in > both systems. > > Does anyone have more info about how NPM runs their repository? Maybe > they can add in some redirects of some sort. > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 11:11, James Thomas wrote: > > > > Reviewing the ASF guidelines on NPM packages to check our JS SDK > satifises > > all the rules[1] - we're supposed to be publishing the NPM package as > > "apacheopenwhisk" and not "openwhisk". This NPM library was published at > ( > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.npmjs.com_package_openwhisk=DwIBaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=6zQLM7Gc0Sv1iwayKOKa4_SFxRIxS478q2gZlAJj4Zw=NilRlnhMriE1MNYQW3S_Ni47FW8uu-CTsXNbM3FYkH8=C-3wIDNjUO6k1tpWW7WQA9d4c-lbe7KshNS1jAR6jxM= > ) before the project was donated to > > Apache. > > > > Moving from the library to publish at `apache-openwhisk` rather than > > `openwhisk`[2] is not technically challenging (and the new package name > is > > available) but will cause numerous issues > > > > I'm asking for comments on what to do about this. Would like to engage > the > > ASF mentors for advice as well. What does the community think about > this? > > > > The library has significant usage (NPM tells me the library is averaging > 6k > > downloads a week) using the existing package name. GitHub lists 38K > > references to the module. > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_search-3Fq-3Drequire-2528-2522openwhisk-2522-2529-26type-3DCode=DwIBaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=6zQLM7Gc0Sv1iwayKOKa4_SFxRIxS478q2gZlAJj4Zw=NilRlnhMriE1MNYQW3S_Ni47FW8uu-CTsXNbM3FYkH8=nIOIJxXhbd1TkXzWJVHx9-NAMQV4JuBsXbm1pEkX8u0= > > > > > All those external dependent projects, blog posts, documentation and > > tutorials, etc, that reference the library (and are outside of our > control) > > will be reliant on the old package name. These will still work (as the > old > > library version will still be available from NPM) but never receive new > > versions on installing the dependency. This may eventually mean the old > > library doesn't work with future platform changes and/or lead to > security > > issues with outdated dependencies. > > > > I'm not sure if there's any leeway in the allowing the short-name for > the > > NPM library (given we follow all the other requirements)? This will be a > > significant amount of work just changing all the references in project > we > > control. > > > > If we do change the name - I'd assume `apache-openwhisk` is fine. Using > > `apacheopenwhisk` is slightly horrid > > > > [1] - > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.apache.org_confluence_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D109454613=DwIBaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=6zQLM7Gc0Sv1iwayKOKa4_SFxRIxS478q2gZlAJj4Zw=NilRlnhMriE1MNYQW3S_Ni47FW8uu-CTsXNbM3FYkH8=ZshMeW40IVmdVpBrfK3b_ERcnaA4Bh7h3iqXvO_NDCc= > > > [2] - following NPM JS module conventions - apache-openwhisk is much > > preferable than a single word (apacheopenwhisk). > > > > -- > > Regards, > > James Thomas > > > > -- > Matt Sicker > > > > > -- Matt Sicker
Re: Re: Changing JavaScript SDK NPM Module Name: openwhisk => apache-openwhisk?
I too like the dash approach unless Apache likes having a domain name style which implies (family) membership hierarchy. From: Matt Sicker To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org Date: 07/15/2019 12:05 PM Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Changing JavaScript SDK NPM Module Name: openwhisk => apache-openwhisk? The name with the dash looks nicer, agreed. In migrating from an old package name to a new one where you already have existing users, I haven't seen a solution to that myself quite yet, though I know that Groovy has a similar problem where their packages are still published under the `org.codehaus.groovy` group id instead of `org.apache.groovy`. While Maven and NPM are quite different, the method of migrating a package name is similarly not well-defined in both systems. Does anyone have more info about how NPM runs their repository? Maybe they can add in some redirects of some sort. On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 11:11, James Thomas wrote: > > Reviewing the ASF guidelines on NPM packages to check our JS SDK satifises > all the rules[1] - we're supposed to be publishing the NPM package as > "apacheopenwhisk" and not "openwhisk". This NPM library was published at ( > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.npmjs.com_package_openwhisk=DwIBaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=6zQLM7Gc0Sv1iwayKOKa4_SFxRIxS478q2gZlAJj4Zw=NilRlnhMriE1MNYQW3S_Ni47FW8uu-CTsXNbM3FYkH8=C-3wIDNjUO6k1tpWW7WQA9d4c-lbe7KshNS1jAR6jxM= ) before the project was donated to > Apache. > > Moving from the library to publish at `apache-openwhisk` rather than > `openwhisk`[2] is not technically challenging (and the new package name is > available) but will cause numerous issues > > I'm asking for comments on what to do about this. Would like to engage the > ASF mentors for advice as well. What does the community think about this? > > The library has significant usage (NPM tells me the library is averaging 6k > downloads a week) using the existing package name. GitHub lists 38K > references to the module. > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_search-3Fq-3Drequire-2528-2522openwhisk-2522-2529-26type-3DCode=DwIBaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=6zQLM7Gc0Sv1iwayKOKa4_SFxRIxS478q2gZlAJj4Zw=NilRlnhMriE1MNYQW3S_Ni47FW8uu-CTsXNbM3FYkH8=nIOIJxXhbd1TkXzWJVHx9-NAMQV4JuBsXbm1pEkX8u0= > > All those external dependent projects, blog posts, documentation and > tutorials, etc, that reference the library (and are outside of our control) > will be reliant on the old package name. These will still work (as the old > library version will still be available from NPM) but never receive new > versions on installing the dependency. This may eventually mean the old > library doesn't work with future platform changes and/or lead to security > issues with outdated dependencies. > > I'm not sure if there's any leeway in the allowing the short-name for the > NPM library (given we follow all the other requirements)? This will be a > significant amount of work just changing all the references in project we > control. > > If we do change the name - I'd assume `apache-openwhisk` is fine. Using > `apacheopenwhisk` is slightly horrid > > [1] - > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.apache.org_confluence_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D109454613=DwIBaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=6zQLM7Gc0Sv1iwayKOKa4_SFxRIxS478q2gZlAJj4Zw=NilRlnhMriE1MNYQW3S_Ni47FW8uu-CTsXNbM3FYkH8=ZshMeW40IVmdVpBrfK3b_ERcnaA4Bh7h3iqXvO_NDCc= > [2] - following NPM JS module conventions - apache-openwhisk is much > preferable than a single word (apacheopenwhisk). > > -- > Regards, > James Thomas -- Matt Sicker
