I'm not taking a side here, but just please consider that if you have two separate implementations for awhile, the newer one will start to diverge and over time, it will become harder and harder for the user to port his code. You may find yourself supporting the old code for much longer than you anticipated (especially if changed go into the old implementation).
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:11 AM, Barber, Christopher < christopher.bar...@analog.com> wrote: > Personally, I believe that MXNet jumped the gun on 1.0. It is pretty clear > that the API is still not entirely stable. > > Given that, I would just go with the incompatible change rather than suck > up a lot of your development time building and supporting bridges and > facades and potentially introducing new bugs as a result. As an > alternative, you could just support two independent implementations using > the two namespaces for some period of time until people can switch to the > new one. It's not like it will be that difficult for customer's to port > their code. > > But really this is up to the Scala maintainers to decide what they want to > do. > > On 3/13/18, 12:01 PM, "kellen sunderland" <kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Maintaining backwards compatibility never results in the prettiest > code, > but it seems pretty desirable here. There are relatively few files > here, > so I agree there's some risk but I don't think it would take too much > time. Feel free to suggest alternatives Christopher. > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Barber, Christopher < > christopher.bar...@analog.com> wrote: > > > That sounds like a lot of work and it would be easy to get wrong if > it is > > even feasible. > > > > On 3/13/18, 11:51 AM, "kellen sunderland" < > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > I don't know about aliasing a namespace in Scala, but I wonder > how > > hard it > > would be to either (1) provide a fascade from the new package to > the > > old > > package or (2) keep two copies of the scala code temporarily > along > > with two > > copies of the JNI entry points. In both of these cases we could > setup > > @deprecated on all public calls to the old package. > > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Nan Zhu <zhunanmcg...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > re Chris: I do not have any good idea about this..... > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Chris Olivier < > > cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > is it possible to somehow alias a namespace in scala > > > > in order to maintain backwards compatibility? > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 7:21 AM Nan Zhu < > zhunanmcg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > and additional suggestion is do it ASAP > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Chris Olivier < > > cjolivie...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > not sure I understand. How could changing a java > namespace > > > (effectively > > > > > > moving the files to a different location as well as > changing > > the > > > > package > > > > > > names) be backward-compatible? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:02 PM Steffen Rochel < > > > > steffenroc...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest the vote should call out if the change is > breaking > > > backward > > > > > > > compatibility or not. > > > > > > > I looked through the scala name changing thread and > don't see > > > > > > justification > > > > > > > for a backward incompatible change. > > > > > > > I do agree it would be good to change the name space, > but > > have not > > > > > seen a > > > > > > > reason why the change has to be made now in backward > > incompatible > > > > way. > > > > > > > Non-binding vote: > > > > > > > +1 for backward compatible namespace change > > > > > > > -1 for backward incompatible namespace change > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Suggest to explore package aliasing for a backward > compatible > > > change > > > > - > > > > > > see > > > > > > > a possible idea at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/28238520/python- > > > > > > like-package-name-aliasing-in-scala > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steffen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Rahul Huilgol < > > > > rahulhuil...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We need to change the namespace as soon as possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Roshani Nagmote < > > > > > > > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to change the namespace > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:05 PM, Chris Olivier < > > > > > > cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The assumption is that it would be changed > more-or-less > > > > > > immediately. > > > > > > > > ie. > > > > > > > > > > this is like a voted PR, I guess. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Chris Olivier < > > > > > > > cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is about changing the namespace. As far as > I > > know, the > > > > > > version > > > > > > > > > number > > > > > > > > > > > of the next release is not defined. > > > > > > > > > > > At such point where a release is announced, > one could > > > > comment, > > > > > > vote > > > > > > > > > > > whatever on the chosen version of that > release, I > > suppose. > > > > But > > > > > > > > that's > > > > > > > > > > > beyond the scope of this vote, because the > "next > > release" > > > is > > > > > not > > > > > > > yet > > > > > > > > > > > defined. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Marco de > Abreu < > > > > > > > > > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Just for clarification: Is this vote about > changing > > the > > > > > > namespace > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > >> next release? > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 7:16 PM, Naveen Swamy > < > > > > > > mnnav...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Chris, Thanks for starting this vote. > > > > > > > > > > >> > This is long pending > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > +1 to change org.apache namespace > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Marco de > Abreu < > > > > > > > > > > >> > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > I gave my +1 for the code modification. > The -1 > > was for > > > > Nan > > > > > > > Zhus > > > > > > > > > > >> proposal > > > > > > > > > > >> > to > > > > > > > > > > >> > > get it into 1.2. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Chris > Olivier < > > > > > > > > > > cjolivie...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > If you're tying this to a process > issue, then > > it's > > > no > > > > > > > longer a > > > > > > > > > > code > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > modification technical vote. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Marco > de > > Abreu < > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Right > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > schrieb am > > > > Mo., > > > > > > 12. > > > > > > > > > März > > > > > > > > > > >> 2018, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > 17:38: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Are you saying your vote is > contingent > > upon the > > > > > > outcome > > > > > > > > of a > > > > > > > > > > >> > separate > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > vote? > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:37 AM, > Marco de > > Abreu > > > < > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > +1 for changing the namespace > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -1 for merging this change into > master > > > according > > > > > to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > >> current > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > policy > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Chris Olivier < > cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > schrieb > > > > am > > > > > > Mo., > > > > > > > > 12. > > > > > > > > > > >> März > > > > > > > > > > >> > > 2018, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 17:34: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Release versioning is a separate > > issue or > > > > vote. > > > > > > At > > > > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > > >> > time, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > people > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > can "demand" version X or Y. > This > > vote > > > > > represents > > > > > > > "do > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > >> want > > > > > > > > > > >> > to > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > change > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the namespace". > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:30 > AM, Nan > > Zhu < > > > > > > > > > > >> > zhunanmcg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I think we'd specify it will > change > > in the > > > > > next > > > > > > > > > version > > > > > > > > > > >> > (1.2)? > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:26 > AM, > > Chris > > > > > Olivier < > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > This vote is for the > code-change > > of > > > > altering > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > Scala > > > > > > > > > > >> API > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > namespace > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > dmlc to org.apache. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Vote will conclude on > Thursday, > > 5pm PDT. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -Chris > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Rahul Huilgol > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
