Quite satisfying to see this spike of mailing list activity! Didn't expect we still had so many subscribers and "attic" seems to be a strong keyword :)
Aaron, thanks for refreshing my memory! I'm also not aware of any other project supporting on the fly topology changes. It's a capability that most use cases don't need, but unique for those that do. WRT Hadoop 3.x support: How about you start a thread and ask how folks feel about moving the master branch (4.x) to Hadoop 3.x? Changes should not be that dramatic as long as it is just a switch and not a multi-version support. If there is buy-in, perhaps you would like to pick up this work? There is another opportunity I wanted to point out in case someone cares about supporting Python or Go on Apex: The Beam portability framework has moved forward quite a bit and the Python and Go SDKs now run on Flink (with Samza in the works). If anyone is looking into Python support, this is the most promising route because the support code is reusable across runners, tested and the work is mostly wiring in the Apex runner. I had written the Apex runner a long time ago and at some point soonish it will reach a crossroad where either it will need to be dropped or upgraded to the Beam portability framework. I don't see benefit doing that work unless someone is interested using it and wants to contribute. But if there is interest, Beam has a welcoming community and great technical depth / potential - I would be happy to help. Thomas On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 6:30 PM Aaron Bossert <aa...@punchcyber.com> wrote: > From the perspective of a person experimenting with Apex coming from a > background with Storm as the existing solution, Thomas’ comment is > particularly relevant: there are significant barriers to entry that make > Apex appealing on the surface, but very challenging to implement or port an > existing streaming pipeline to. Not the least of which is support for > Hadoop 3.1...I am using HDP 3.1 as my infrastructure layer and not being > able to support that platform is a significant hindrance...as for other > comments about feature distinction then versus now, I still don’t see any > other options that natively support in-flight changes to the > topology...this alone is worth its weight in gold. Also, personalities (as > commented on earlier) play little to no role in my opinion of the > platform. I would be happy to contribute back even with fairly restrictive > conditions... > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jan 9, 2019, at 21:07, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Without 3 active PMC members it would be the board decision to move the > project to the attic, fortunately it is not yet at this state. At the same > time I don’t think that it is good to pretend that the project is alive > without contributions. > > > > The rebranding is required only if an enterprise, a community or an > individual wants to distribute it. If somebody wants to maintain a private > fork, there is no need for rebranding, right? The only point to keep Apex > as Apache project is in the case when there are contributions back from a > private fork to the project. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Vlad > > > >> On Jan 9, 2019, at 17:42, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> IMHO, the bare minimum for “survivability” as an ASF project is 3 > Active PMC members (to make project decisions) and enough of an active > community to make releases when necessary (e.g. Respond to CVEs, etc.). > >> > >> Given the responses to this thread, I believe the project has the > former. The question becomes is there enough of a community left for the > latter? > >> > >> Also, life after Apache is possible. The most important consideration, > is that to do so would require renaming/rebranding, since the ASF owns the > Apex trademark. > >> > >> -Taylor > >> > >>> On Jan 9, 2019, at 5:01 PM, Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Sanjay, long time, no see. > >>> > >>> This is my attempt to mobilize the community and see if we can revive > some activity on the project. Note that the same discussion happened among > PMCs members 2 month ago and there were promises to contribute back to the > project with no new PRs being open. Should you follow the e-mail thread > thoroughly, you would see that the move to the attic was questioned by the > Apache board, so it was not me who initiated the move. I simply made > community aware that Apex is the subject of the move if it continues the > way it was for the last 6-8 months. With the current activity and no > commitment to make new contributions Apex does belong to the attic. > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> > >>> Vlad > >>> > >>>> On Jan 9, 2019, at 12:27, Sanjay Pujare <sanjay.puj...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Vlad > >>>> > >>>> I have been watching this debate from the sidelines and just decided > to > >>>> jump in. > >>>> > >>>> As an Apex PMC member you said "... I am responsible for maintaining > the > >>>> correct state of the project...". But let's face it, you don't > actually > >>>> have to do it just like you didn't have to make contributions, make > >>>> proposals or do all sorts of other things for keeping the project > alive and > >>>> vibrant. Without doing absolutely anything, PMC members will continue > to > >>>> remain PMC members which applies to you as well. > >>>> > >>>> So at this stage, you may do nothing, you may start mobilizing for > making > >>>> contributions, you may stop being a member of PMC or you may start > this > >>>> drive to move the project to the attic. May I know why you chose the > last > >>>> option instead of one of the others? It will be good to know your > answer > >>>> before discussing the details of people staying away or being > discouraged. > >>>> > >>>> Sanjay > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:50 AM Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Amol, > >>>>> > >>>>> Without details who decided to stay away and why it is not very > >>>>> constructive and does not tell me whether I should continue or not. > Again, > >>>>> I’d like to see what policies needs to be changed that will bring > more > >>>>> contributions and won’t affect quality of the code. If you have a > concrete > >>>>> proposal, please post it here, so the community can decide whether to > >>>>> accept them or not. > >>>>> > >>>>> It is always the case that a contributor decides what to contribute. > The > >>>>> goal of the e-mail thread is to see if there are few contributors > who plan > >>>>> to contribute in the new future and what do they plan to contribute. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you, > >>>>> > >>>>> Vlad > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jan 9, 2019, at 10:18, amol kekre <amolhke...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Vlad, > >>>>>> Would you want to continue to be involved in the project, even if > this > >>>>>> involvement is itself causing community folks to stay away? If the > issue > >>>>> is > >>>>>> cultural, things will not improve. Doing the same thing again and > >>>>> expecting > >>>>>> different result will not work. Why not change the policies that > >>>>> enforces a > >>>>>> different culture, and then wait 6 months to see if things change. > With > >>>>>> regards to listing features, that needs to be something that the > >>>>>> contributors should decide. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Amol > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 9:22 AM Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Remember that to vote -1 it is necessary to provide justification, > so > >>>>> I’d > >>>>>>> like to see the justifications and the plan from those who do not > want > >>>>> to > >>>>>>> move Apex to the attic. I am also not very happy that my past > efforts > >>>>> will > >>>>>>> be placed in the attic, but let’s face the reality. It is not that > I > >>>>> don’t > >>>>>>> want to be involved in the project, but as the PMC I am > responsible for > >>>>>>> maintaining the correct state of the project and with the current > level > >>>>> of > >>>>>>> contributions, IMO, it belongs the the attic. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thank you, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Vlad > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Jan 9, 2019, at 09:02, Pramod Immaneni < > pramod.imman...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> What would be the purpose of such a vote? From the discussions it > is > >>>>>>> quite > >>>>>>>> apparent that there is a significant, possibly majority view that > >>>>> project > >>>>>>>> shouldn’t go to attic. The same could be reported to the board, > can’t > >>>>> it? > >>>>>>>> Like I also said if you or others don’t like where the project is > at > >>>>> and > >>>>>>>> feel it is a dead end, you don’t have to continue to be involved > with > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>> project and that’s your prerogative. Let others who want to > continue, > >>>>>>> take > >>>>>>>> it forward, why try to force your will on to everyone. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 8:43 AM Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Without concrete details of what will be committed (support for > k8s, > >>>>>>>>> hadoop 3.x, kafka 2.x, etc) and what requirements in code > submission > >>>>>>> needs > >>>>>>>>> to be relaxed (well written java code, consistent code style, > >>>>> successful > >>>>>>>>> build with passing unit tests in CI, providing unit test, etc) > the > >>>>>>>>> statements below are way too vague. Note that I started this > e-mail > >>>>>>> thread > >>>>>>>>> with the intention to see what contributions the community may > expect. > >>>>>>>>> Without concrete details of the future contribution, I’ll submit > a > >>>>> vote > >>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>> end of January. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Vlad > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 9, 2019, at 00:47, priyanka gugale <pri...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I do believe and know of some work done in private forks by > people. > >>>>>>> There > >>>>>>>>>> could be couple of reasons why it didn't go public. One could > be high > >>>>>>> bar > >>>>>>>>>> for code submission (I don't have references at hand but that's > >>>>> general > >>>>>>>>>> feeling amongst committers) and other could be lack of > motivation. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Let's try to put some efforts to re-survive the work, motivate > >>>>>>>>> committers, > >>>>>>>>>> and take hard decisions later if nothing works. A product like > Apex / > >>>>>>>>>> Malhar definitely deserves to survive. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -Priyanka > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 12:07 PM Atri Sharma <a...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The reason for a private fork was due to potential IP > conflicts with > >>>>>>>>>>> my current organization. I am working to get approvals and > >>>>> clearances, > >>>>>>>>>>> and post that, shall publish the said effort. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 12:02 PM Justin Mclean < > >>>>>>> jus...@classsoftware.com > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a private fork for an experimental project. It might > be > >>>>> open > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sourced in a couple of months. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I’m curious, if you don’t mind answering a couple of > questions: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> As you are a committer on this project is there any reason > that > >>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>> work wasn’t done in public fork or even better on a branch of > the > >>>>> Apex > >>>>>>>>>>> repo? Why would a delay of a couple of months be required? If > it’s > >>>>> “it > >>>>>>>>>>> might be” what realistically are the chances of that happening? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Justin > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Atri > >>>>>>>>>>> Apache Concerted > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>> Pramod > >>>>>>>> http://ts.la/pramod3443 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > > >
