No, concerns for the changing the project name and version remain the same. I think the current version numbering train and name are fine and prefer we move forward and not backward by resetting things back to 1.x, which I believe is not accurate for the project. The name change is unnecessary, the name isn't broken that it needs to be fixed, it does not buy us much and causes unnecessary disruption for people who are already used to and malhar is already known out there. It is equivalent to asking for apex-core to be changed to apex-engine, engine is probably a better name but is it worth making the change, probably not, if it is not broke why fix it.
Thanks On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote: > How do we move from here? If all the concerns regarding version and > artifactId change are addressed we should move forward with the vote, if > not, it will be good to raise them here rather than in the voting thread. > > Thank you, > > Vlad > > > On 8/24/17 10:26, Thomas Weise wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Amol Kekre <a...@datatorrent.com> wrote: >> >> In terms of rebasing versions, there is no urgency in mimic-ing some of >>> the >>> other projects. Apex has already be been versioned. >>> >> >> There is an expectation users have for a version number, which is >> different >> for 3.x or 1.x or 0.x. Apex library maturity is nowhere near 3.x. That was >> already discussed. >> >> What functional gain do >> >>> we have by changing versions, names? Functionality wise Apex users do not >>> gain anything. With regards to bumping to 4.X, we should wait for a >>> proposal/plan for a new functional api. >>> >>> Addition of such API does not require major version change. New API have >> been added and no major version change was done. Major version change is >> for backward incompatible changes. >> >> Examples: >> - rename packages >> - remove deprecated code >> - relocate operators that were not designed for production use >> - change to functionality of operators >> >> There is an illusion of backward compatibility (which does not exist >> today). That cannot be used as justification to not make changes. >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> Please see my comments in-line. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Vlad >>>> >>>> On 8/23/17 09:11, Pramod Immaneni wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 that could extend beyond their application such as >>>>> documentation >>>>> etc. >>>>> >>>>> Changing the name is as disruptive to users as changing minor/patch >>>> version. I don't see a big difference in changing one line in pom.xml >>>> (version) vs changing 2 lines (version and artifact). There is a bigger >>>> change/disruption that does IMO require major version change and >>>> renaming >>>> project to use the single brand (Apache Apex) at the same time is >>>> beneficial both to the project and users. Changing package and major >>>> version will impact documentation in much bigger way compared to >>>> changing >>>> artifactId. >>>> >>>> Second the project has been around for quite some time and has reached a >>>>> version 3.x, the second part of the proposed change is to reset it back >>>>> >>>> to >>> >>>> 1.0-SNAPSHOT. I don't think that is accurate for the project and the >>>>> maturity it would portray to the users. Not to get subjective but there >>>>> are >>>>> operators in malhar that are best of the breed when it comes to >>>>> >>>> streaming >>> >>>> functionality they achieve. >>>>> >>>>> There are many Apache projects that were around much longer than malhar >>>> and have not yet reached 3.x version even though they are also used in >>>> production and are considered more stable. Number of evolving packages >>>> >>> and >>> >>>> interfaces in malhar do not qualify it for 3.x or 4.x. IMO, version must >>>> >>> be >>> >>>> driven by the engineering/community, not by the marketing. >>>> >>>> Third think about all the changes it would need, code, project >>>>> infrastructure such as github repo and jira project, documentation, >>>>> website >>>>> etc and the time all the developers have to spend to adapt to this. >>>>> Wouldn't we want to spend this time doing something more productive. >>>>> >>>>> I don't think it is as drastic as it looks to be. It was done in a past >>>> and is supported by all tools involved. >>>> >>>> I would think changing a project name and resetting the version is a big >>>>> deal and should be done if there something big to gain for the project >>>>> >>>> by >>> >>>> doing this. What is the big gain we achieve to justify all this >>>>> consternation? If we want to increase adoption, one of the things we >>>>> >>>> need >>> >>>> to do is to provide users with a platform that behaves in an expected >>>>> >>>> and >>> >>>> stable manner. >>>>> >>>>> It will be good to provide details why is it "a big deal". Why changing >>>> groupId was not a big deal and changing artifactId is a big deal? >>>> >>>> I completely agree with the increasing adoption, but it comes from the >>>> quality, not from the quantity and whether version is 1.x, 3.x or 4.x >>>> >>> does >>> >>>> not change the quality of the library. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:09 AM Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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 project may continue without them. The same should apply >>>>>> not only to the current set of changes, but to all future discussions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> >>>>>> Vlad >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8/23/17 06:54, Thomas Weise 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> >>>>>> Vlad >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Vlad >>>> >>>> > > Thank you, > > Vlad >
