+1 Lovely. Very readable.
The "-parent" artifacts are just leaked implementation details of our build configuration that no one should ever actually reference, right? Kenn On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Dan Halperin <dhalp...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > +2! This seems most concordant with other Apache products and the most > future-proof. > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > > On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > > > >> After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other > >> projects, > >> I think we are converging towards: > >> > >> * A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the > >> org.apache.beam > >> group. > >> * Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-". > >> * Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module layout: > >> beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, etc. > >> * Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent", > >> "sdks-java-parent", etc. > >> * Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging the > source > >> code for the ASF release. > >> > >> I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback so far, > >> and > >> I think opposing positions have been retracted. > >> > >> Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any additional > >> points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in pending > >> pull > >> requests #420 and #423. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise <thomas.we...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution > >>> solutions > >>> is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For that it > >>> may > >>> be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique > artifactId. > >>> > >>> The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM) can > also > >>> be controlled without expanding the artifactId: > >>> > >>> <build> > >>> <plugins> > >>> <plugin> > >>> <artifactId>maven-assembly-plugin</artifactId> > >>> <configuration> > >>> <finalName>apache-beam</finalName> > >>> </configuration> > >>> </plugin> > >>> </plugins> > >>> </build> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Thomas > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Davor Bonaci <da...@google.com.invalid > > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> BEAM-315 is definitely important. Normally, I'd always advocate for > >>>> > >>> holding > >>> > >>>> the release to pick that fix. For the very first release, however, I'd > >>>> prefer to proceed to get something out there and test the process. As > >>>> you > >>>> said, we can address this rather quickly once we have the fix merged > in. > >>>> > >>>> In terms of Maven coordinates, there are two basic approaches: > >>>> * flat structure, where artifacts live under "org.apache.beam" group > and > >>>> are differentiated by their artifact id. > >>>> * hierarchical structure, where we use different groups for different > >>>> > >>> types > >>> > >>>> of artifacts (org.apache.beam.sdks; org.apache.beam.runners). > >>>> > >>>> There are pros and cons on the both sides of the argument. Different > >>>> projects made different choices. Flat structure is easier to find and > >>>> navigate, but often breaks down with too many artifacts. Hierarchical > >>>> structure is just the opposite. > >>>> > >>>> On my end, the only important thing is consistency. We used to have > it, > >>>> > >>> and > >>> > >>>> it got broken by PR #365. This part should be fixed -- we should > either > >>>> finish the vision of the hierarchical structure, or rollback that PR > to > >>>> > >>> get > >>> > >>>> back to a fully flat structure. > >>>> > >>>> My general biases tend to be: > >>>> * hierarchical structure, since we have many artifacts already. > >>>> * short identifiers; no need to repeat a part of the group id in the > >>>> artifact id. > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net > > > >>>> 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 > > >
