I have not seen any active discussion on the topic since Monday and I
don't see how a full consensus in the subject can be reached as no any
other solution is proposed other than to wait with no clear time-frame
when package names may be unified and follow Apache recommendation.
Thank you,
Vlad
On 9/1/17 18:27, Amol Kekre wrote:
This vote was not done per process. The discussion was still on going. A
decision that is more of code impact (consensus) is being called a
procedural decision (majority vote). Moreover end of vote day/time was also
not called ahead of the vote to determine when the vote ends. These seem to
be a premise that only a few care about project. All red flags.
Thks,
Amol
E:a...@datatorrent.com | M: 510-449-2606 | Twitter: @*amolhkekre*
www.datatorrent.com
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote:
The first step in allowing a real community to grow would be to wear the
project hat, participate in discussions as individual, and consider how to
enable changes vs. trying to block active community members that contribute
on their own time from taking the project forward.
Versioning and parallel release lines exist for a reason. Nothing needs to
be reinvented, everything that is needed to not disrupt existing users
while allowing for changes that evolve a product already exists.
A number of folks don't wear the project hat, don't contribute in a
constructive manner and are otherwise not actively visible in the project.
Do they participate in this discussion out of their own interest or because
they are paid to do so? That combined with a look at the contributor stats
should provide a fairly good orientation.
This discussion here is about making changes and evolve the project, not to
organize a DataTorrent & friends blockade. Put your own effort, research,
follow a discussion thread, present your own opinion. Separately, it will
be necessary to take up the topic of project independence at the PMC level.
Thomas
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Sandeep Deshmukh <
sandeep.deshm...@gmail.com
wrote:
I totally agree with Sandesh. Things are being pushed when there is clear
disagreement. If Apex has to grow the community, it can't grow using
divide
and conquer method.
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Sandesh Hegde <sand...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:
Using all the technicalities and loop holes, we can declare many votes
invalid. What purpose does it solve? This thread is dividing the
community,
instead of recognizing the difference if we move forward with this,
there
is a chance that Apex will alienate many contributors. What's the end
game
here? At what cost?
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:31 AM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote:
Yes, you would need a separate discussion/vote on changes not being
reflected in master that you make to a branch (current procedure).
Regarding procedural vote, the decision to start development towards
new
major release is a longer term decision, not just code change.
https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval
"Refers to a vote (sense 1) which has completed with at least three
binding
+1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes. ( I.e. , a simple majority
with a
minimum quorum of three positive votes.) Note that in votes requiring
majority approval a -1 vote is simply a vote against, not a veto.
Compare
Consensus Approval. See also the description of the voting process."
For code modifications the rules are different, -1 is a veto that
needs
to
have a valid technical reason why the change cannot be made.
Otherwise
it
is void. None of the -1s in the vote result provide such
justification.
Thanks,
Thomas
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
pra...@datatorrent.com>
wrote:
Thomas,
Wouldn't you need to call a separate procedural vote for whether
changes
cannot be allowed into 3.x without requiring they be submitted to
4.x
as
there was a disagreement there? Also, I am not sure that the
procedural
vote argument can be used here for 4.x given that it involves
modifications
to existing code. I would say we should drive towards getting a
consensus
by addressing the concerns folks have about 4.x.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org>
wrote:
There wasn't any more discussion on this, so here is the result:
1. Version 4.0 as major version change from 3.x
====================================
+1 (7)
Thomas Weise (PMC)
Ananth G
Vlad Rozov (PMC)
Munagala Ramanath (committer)
Pramod Immaneni (PMC)
Sanjay Pujare
David Yan (PMC)
-1 (3)
Amol Kekre (PMC)
Sergey Golovko
Ashwin Chandra Putta (committer)
2. Version 1.0 with simultaneous change of Maven artifact IDs
===============================================
+1 (5)
Thomas Weise (PMC)
Ananth G
Vlad Rozov (PMC)
Munagala Ramanath (committer)
David Yan (PMC)
-1 (5)
Pramod Immaneni (PMC)
Sanjay Pujare
Amol Kekre (PMC)
Sergey Golovko
Ashwin Chandra Putta (committer)
RESULT
=======
Vote for option 1 (major version 4.x) *passes* with majority rule
[1].
Thanks,
Thomas
[1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
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
