Re: -1 or veto voting

Justification is to not mingle small changes with refactoring and not perform refactoring of this kind without adequate discussion. Both was already conveyed on current PR and previous PR. You did the right thing declaring your intent to merge without just pulling the trigger, but you also need

Re: -1 or veto voting

Today, I saw the below -1 by Thomas, https://github.com/apache/apex-malhar/pull/666 without the technical justification. Saumya, PR Author, has created a mail thread to discuss the justification, but there was no comment in the mail thread. So should we consider this as invalid -1? On Thu, Aug

Re: -1 or veto voting

For -1 to be valid there *must* be *technical* justification(s) not to proceed with the code change. Without such justification -1 is considered to be void/invalid [1]. I don't see any possible *technical* justification not to proceed with the package rename as it was done in the past by a

Re: -1 or veto voting

That is not accurate, I have mentioned and probably others as well that changing the name of the project would be disruptive to users. Users are used to using the malhar project and its artifacts a certain way and this would cause them immediate confusion followed by consternation and then changes

Re: -1 or veto voting

There was plenty of discussion over several months about this and the 3.x vs. 4.0 trade off is part of it. If there is no agreement to make a binary compatible change in 3.x then the only way forward is 4.0, and that was expressed by those that participated with constructive suggestions. You have

Re: -1 or veto voting

All -1 are technically void at this point as justification given are why project may continue without modifications and not why the modification must not be done. Whether we proceed with the vote or with the discussion, arguments should be what are pros and cons of a code change, not that the

Re: -1 or veto voting

Thomas, My worry is that consequences of main-branch being 4.x have not been discussed in detail. How about we take that up on discussion thread. I can volunteer to put 4.x to vote post that discussion. Thks, Amol E:a...@datatorrent.com | M: 510-449-2606 | Twitter: @*amolhkekre*

Re: -1 or veto voting

The earlier discussion had concerns about making changes in 3.x and the expressed preference was major version change. Accordingly the vote is for major version change. On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Amol Kekre wrote: > The earlier discussion had concerns about this

Re: -1 or veto voting

The earlier discussion had concerns about this vote and the need to brand to 4.x right now. IMO they were not sufficiently addressed. Thks Amol E:a...@datatorrent.com | M: 510-449-2606 | Twitter: @*amolhkekre* www.datatorrent.com On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Thomas Weise

Re: -1 or veto voting

The discussion already took place [1]. There are two options under vote out of that discussion and for the first option there is a single -1. Use of -1 during voting (and veto on PR) when not showing up during the preceding discussion is problematic. Thomas [1]

Re: -1 or veto voting

Hi, Votes are only valid on code modifications with a reason. [1] However it looks to me that there’s not consensus and which way forward is best I would suggest cancelling the vote and having a discussion of the benefit or not of making the change. Thanks, Justin 1.