Re: [VOTE] Major version change for Apex Library (Malhar)

+1 for option 2 (primary) +1 for option 1 (secondary) Thank you, Vlad On 8/21/17 23:37, Ananth G wrote: +1 for option 2 and second vote for option 1 Have we finalized the library name ? Going from Apex-malhar 3.7 to Apex-malhar-1.0 would be counter intuitive. Also it would be great if we

Re: [VOTE] Major version change for Apex Library (Malhar)

Do you mean that prior to groupId change nobody was using that groupId or that nobody was using the library itself :)? If nobody was using the library, the version 3.x at the beginning of the project is questionable. My question is why -1 (veto) as long as things won't fall apart either way.

Re: [VOTE] Major version change for Apex Library (Malhar)

On just voting part, I remain -1 on both options Thks Amol E:a...@datatorrent.com | M: 510-449-2606 | Twitter: @*amolhkekre* www.datatorrent.com On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Pramod Immaneni wrote: > I think we should take this discussion to a separate thread as

Re: [VOTE] Major version change for Apex Library (Malhar)

+1 for option 1 -1 for option 2 as I see no impending need to do this now, as in if we don't do this, things will fall apart. It will be a source of more disruption and confusion. Malhar has been around for quite some time, evolving and growing during this period and going to version 4.0 would be

Re: [VOTE] Major version change for Apex Library (Malhar)

I am -1 on option 2. There is no need to do so, as going back on versions at this stage has consequences to Apex users. I am for option 1, but I want to propose explicit change to the text. Based on verbatim text, I am voting -1 on option 1. I believe in the original discussion thread there was

Re: [VOTE] Major version change for Apex Library (Malhar)

+1 for option 2 (primary) +1 for option 1 (secondary) Ram On Tuesday, August 22, 2017, 6:58:46 AM PDT, Vlad Rozov wrote: +1 for option 2 (primary) +1 for option 1 (secondary) Thank you, Vlad On 8/21/17 23:37, Ananth G wrote: > +1 for option 2 and second vote for option 1

[jira] [Created] (APEXCORE-778) Refactor DelayOperatorTest

Vlad Rozov created APEXCORE-778: --- Summary: Refactor DelayOperatorTest Key: APEXCORE-778 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-778 Project: Apache Apex Core Issue Type:

Re: [VOTE] Major version change for Apex Library (Malhar)

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Amol Kekre wrote: > I am -1 on option 2. There is no need to do so, as going back on versions > at this stage has consequences to Apex users. > > I am for option 1, but I want to propose explicit change to the text. Based > on verbatim

Re: [VOTE] Major version change for Apex Library (Malhar)

I would argue that things won't fall apart in both cases whether artifactId and version are changed or not, so I don't see why it is -1 for the option 2. When groupId was changed from com.datatorrent to org.apache.apex, things have not fall apart :). Thank you, Vlad On 8/22/17 08:31, Pramod

Re: [VOTE] Major version change for Apex Library (Malhar)

I think we should take this discussion to a separate thread as it is a vote thread. I don't see a need for this change now as there isn't enough justification (such as things are falling apart without this) for the disruption it will cause. My earlier point is that there was a justification when

Re: [VOTE] Major version change for Apex Library (Malhar)

+1 for option 2 and second vote for option 1 Have we finalized the library name ? Going from Apex-malhar 3.7 to Apex-malhar-1.0 would be counter intuitive. Also it would be great if we have an agreed process to mark an operator from @evolving to stable version given we are trying to address