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 voted -1 on backward compatible change in 3.x , now you vote -1 to go to 4.x while saying "I am for option 1", which is going to 4.x. All of that with an apparently insufficient understanding of development process and branching, stability/maturity of the code base and how backward compatibility in Malhar has (or has not) worked over the past 2 years. If you need clarification for yourself then IMO you should ask questions, and not vote -1 all over the board. Thomas On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Amol Kekre <a...@datatorrent.com> wrote: > 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* > > www.datatorrent.com > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 7:03 AM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > > > 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 <a...@datatorrent.com> > wrote: > > > > > 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 <t...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > 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] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ > > bd1db8a2d01e23b0c0ab98a785f6ee > > > > 9492a1ac9e52d422568a46e5f3@%3Cdev.apex.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:58 AM, Justin Mclean < > > jus...@classsoftware.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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. https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > > > > > > > > >
