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.
Thank you,
Vlad
On 8/22/17 14:09, Pramod Immaneni wrote:
The groupId change was done at the beginning of the project about two years
ago before there was an apex release for anyone to use.
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote:
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 Immaneni wrote:
+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
a
natural progression. Since this is a major version change, there is more
of
a license to relegate things that are deemed unsuitable for production use
to contrib (an area designated for that purpose), remove deprecated items,
move things around and possibly even make backwards incompatible
functionality changes so I don't see a need to change the artifact id and
identity of the project.
Thanks
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Munagala Ramanath <
amberar...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
+1 for option 2 (primary)
+1 for option 1 (secondary)
Ram
On Tuesday, August 22, 2017, 6:58:46 AM PDT, Vlad Rozov <
vro...@apache.org>
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
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 this as well as part of the proposal
Regards
Ananth
On 22 Aug 2017, at 11:40 am, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote:
+1 for option 2 (second vote +1 for option 1)
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote:
This is to formalize the major version change for Malhar discussed in
[1].
There are two options for major version change. Major version change
will
rename legacy packages to org.apache.apex sub packages while retaining
file
history in git. Other cleanup such as removing deprecated code is also
expected.
1. Version 4.0 as major version change from 3.x
2. Version 1.0 with simultaneous change of Maven artifact IDs
Please refer to the discussion thread [1] for reasoning behind both of
the
options.
Please vote on both options. Primary vote for your preferred option,
secondary for the other. Secondary vote can be used when counting
primary
vote alone isn't conclusive.
Vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
Thanks,
Thomas
[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/
bd1db8a2d01e23b0c0ab98a785f6ee
9492a1ac9e52d422568a46e5f3@%3Cdev.apex.apache.org%3E
Thank you,
Vlad
Thank you,
Vlad
Thank you,
Vlad
