I think that the [VOTE] tagging was a bit confusing, at least for me. I thought it was a formal vote..
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016, 20:29 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Absolutely. > > The vote/discussion can "extended" to other options (even if I don't see > obvious right now). No worries at all. > > Regards > JB > > On 06/03/2016 07:25 PM, Frances Perry wrote: > > Totally agree on discussing this ;-) I think Davor was just suggesting we > > lay out all options and understand them before calling for a vote between > > them. > > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > > wrote: > > > >> The purpose of the vote is to get a consensus actually. > >> > >> We have two options expressed on the mailing list: the current "layout" > is > >> good IMHO but all don't agree. So, let's put things on the table and > move > >> forward. The vote is a way of discussing. It's not a vote for the > release, > >> it's a vote/discussion for the layout and Maven coordinates (so not a > >> formal vote). > >> > >> Just to remember: all should be discussed and informed on the mailing > list. > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >> > >> On 06/03/2016 06:50 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > >> > >>> This is not a great vote proposal for several reasons: > >>> * "Use the current layout" is ambiguous, because it is inconsistent > (it is > >>> now partly flat and party hierarchical). > >>> * Getting the outcome won't move us much closer to the resolution, > given > >>> that there are several sub-variants in each option. > >>> * We have not laid out advantages, disadvantages, and consequences of > each > >>> option for everyone to make an informed decision. > >>> * It is premature: we haven't tried to reach a consensus or explored > >>> alternatives. 3 hours and just a few emails is way too short from a > issue > >>> being raised to vote call. > >>> > >>> I'd suggest to try to find a consensus on the original thread first, > and > >>> call for a vote if/when needed. > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Amit Sela <amitsel...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> +1 for Option2 > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:09 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> As said in my previous e-mail, just proposed PR #416. > >>>>> > >>>>> Let's start a vote for groupId and artifactId naming. > >>>>> > >>>>> [ ] Option1: use the current layout (multiple groupId, artifactId > >>>>> relative to groupId) > >>>>> [ ] Option2: use unique org.apache.beam groupId and rename artifactId > >>>>> with a prefix (beam-parent/apache-beam, flink-runner, spark-runner, > etc) > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards > >>>>> JB > >>>>> > >>>>> On 06/03/2016 01:03 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Max, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I discussed with Davor yesterday. Basically, I proposed: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. To rename all parent with a prefix (beam-parent, > >>>>>> > >>>>> flink-runner-parent, > >>>> > >>>>> spark-runner-parent, etc). > >>>>>> 2. For the groupId, I prefer to use different groupId, it's clearer > to > >>>>>> me, and it's exactly the usage of the groupId. Some projects use a > >>>>>> single groupId (spark, hadoop, etc), others use multiple (camel, > karaf, > >>>>>> activemq, etc). I prefer different groupIds but ok to go back to > single > >>>>>> one. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Anyway, I'm preparing a PR to introduce a new Maven module: > >>>>>> "distribution". The purpose is to address both BEAM-319 (first) and > >>>>>> BEAM-320 (later). It's where we will be able to define the different > >>>>>> distributions we plan to publish (source and binaries). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards > >>>>>> JB > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 06/03/2016 11:02 AM, Maximilian Michels wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks for getting us ready for the first release, Davor! We would > >>>>>>> like to fix BEAM-315 next week. Is there already a timeline for the > >>>>>>> first release? If so, we could also address this in a minor > release. > >>>>>>> Releasing often will give us some experience with our release > process > >>>>>>> :) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would like everyone to think about the artifact names and group > ids > >>>>>>> again. "parent" and "flink" are not very suitable names for the > Beam > >>>>>>> parent or the Flink Runner artifact (same goes for the Spark > Runner). > >>>>>>> I'd prefer "beam-parent", "flink-runner", and "spark-runner" as > >>>>>>> artifact ids. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> One might think of Maven GroupIds as a sort of hierarchy but > they're > >>>>>>> not. They're just an identifier. Renaming the parent pom to > >>>>>>> "apache-beam" or "beam-parent" would give us the old naming scheme > >>>>>>> which used flat group ids (before [1]). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In the end, I guess it doesn't matter too much if we document the > >>>>>>> naming schemes accordingly. What matters is that we use a > consistent > >>>>>>> naming scheme. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>> Max > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-287 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Actually, I think we can fix both issue in one commit. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> What do you think about renaming the main parent POM with: > >>>>>>>> groupId: org.apache.beam > >>>>>>>> artifactId: apache-beam > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks to that, the source distribution will be named > >>>>>>>> apache-beam-xxx-sources.zip and it would be clearer to dev. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thoughts ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>> JB > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 06/02/2016 03:10 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Another annoying thing is the main parent POM artifactId. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Now, it's just "parent". What do you think about renaming to > >>>>>>>>> "beam-parent" ? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Regarding the source distribution name, I would cancel this > staging > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> to > >>>> > >>>>> fix that (I will have a PR ready soon). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thoughts ? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>>> JB > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 06/02/2016 03:46 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone! > >>>>>>>>>> We've started the release process for our first release, > >>>>>>>>>> 0.1.0-incubating. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular > functional > >>>>>>>>>> goals > >>>>>>>>>> for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's > >>>>>>>>>> currently in > >>>>>>>>>> the repository, as well as work through the release process. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> With this in mind, we've: > >>>>>>>>>> * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit > 8485272, > >>>>>>>>>> * updated master to prepare for the second release, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 0.2.0-incubating, > >>>> > >>>>> * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> staging > >>>>> > >>>>>> repository [2]. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> identified > >>>> > >>>>> a few > >>>>>>>>>> issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> take > >>>> > >>>>> a > >>>>> > >>>>>> peek > >>>>>>>>>> and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as > possible > >>>>>>>>>> before we > >>>>>>>>>> start the voting process. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Please let us know if you see any issues. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>> Davor > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating > >>>>> > >>>>>> [2] > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/ > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré > >>>>>>>> jbono...@apache.org > >>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net > >>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré > >>>>> jbono...@apache.org > >>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net > >>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré > >> jbono...@apache.org > >> http://blog.nanthrax.net > >> Talend - http://www.talend.com > >> > > > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
