Hi all, Although in the initial thread I said that, in general, I would prefer having one repository, I understand that arguments presented here and I think it makes sense for such a young project to have its own repository.
So +1 from my side, with an asterisk about hoping that eventually the project is going to be merged in the main flink repo. For the website, I agree with Till, i.e. separate website but with the prominent link from the main Flink docs. Cheers, Kostas On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:07 AM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: > > I think it makes sense to keep the stateful functions code in a separate > repository in the beginning as described. At a later point in time we could > revisit this topic if we see that the split codebase becomes a problem or > if there are other benefits such as better visibility. > > For the website, we could keep them separate but put a prominent link from > the Flink documentation to the stateful functions documentation. > > Cheers, > Till > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:02 AM Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi Stephan, > > > > +1 for keeping it in a separate repository for fast release cycles and > > stability until it is mature enough. But we should definitely merge it > > back to the core repo also for marketing reasons. > > > > IMHO side projects tend to be overlooked by the outside world even > > though they are great technology. > > > > Would we still document the code in our main documentation or on a > > separate website? > > > > Thanks, > > Timo > > > > > > On 16.10.19 09:15, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > > > I would keep statefun in a separate repo in the beginning, for the > > reasons you mentioned. > > > > > > Best, > > > Aljoscha > > > > > >> On 15. Oct 2019, at 23:40, Flavio Pompermaier <pomperma...@okkam.it> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Definitely on the same page..+1 to keep it in a separate repo (at least > > >> until the cose becomes "stable" and widely adopted from the community) > > >> > > >> Il Mar 15 Ott 2019, 23:17 Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> ha scritto: > > >> > > >>> Hi Flink folks! > > >>> > > >>> After the positive reaction to the contribution proposal for Stateful > > >>> Functions, I would like to kick off the discussion for the big > > question: In > > >>> which form should it go into Flink? > > >>> > > >>> Before jumping into the "repository" question directly, let's get some > > >>> clarity on what would be our high-level goal with this project and the > > >>> contribution. > > >>> My thinking so far was: > > >>> > > >>> - Stateful Functions is a way for Flink and stream processing to > > become > > >>> applicable for more general application development. That is a chance > > to > > >>> grow our community to a new crowd of developers. > > >>> > > >>> - While adding this to Flink gives synergies with the runtime it > > build on > > >>> top of, it makes sense to offer the new developers a lightweight way > > to get > > >>> involved. Simple setup, easy contributions. > > >>> > > >>> - This is a new project, the API and many designs are not frozen at > > this > > >>> point and may still change heavily. > > >>> To become really good, the project needs to still make a bunch of > > >>> iterations (no pun intended) and change many things quickly. > > >>> > > >>> - The Stateful Functions project will likely try to release very > > >>> frequently in its early days, to improve quickly and gather feedback > > fast. > > >>> Being bound to Flink core release cycle would hurt here. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> I believe that with all those goals, adding Stateful Functions to the > > Flink > > >>> core repository would not make sense. Flink core has processes that > > make > > >>> sense for an established project that needs to guarantee stability. > > These > > >>> processes are simply prohibitive for new projects to develop. > > >>> In addition, the Flink main repository is gigantic, has a build system > > and > > >>> CI system that cannot handle the size of the project any more. Not the > > best > > >>> way to start expanding into a new community. > > >>> > > >>> In some sense, Stateful Functions could make sense as an independent > > >>> project, but it is so tightly coupled to Flink right now that I think > > an > > >>> even better fit is a separate repository in Flink. > > >>> Think Hive and Hadoop in the early days. That way, we get the synergy > > >>> between the two (the same community drives them) while letting both > > move at > > >>> their own speed. > > >>> It would somehow mean two closely related projects shepherded by the > > same > > >>> community. > > >>> > > >>> It might be possible at a later stage to either merge this into Flink > > core > > >>> (once Stateful Functions is more settled) or even spin this out as a > > >>> standalone Apache project, if that is how the community develops. > > >>> > > >>> That is my main motivation. It is not driven primarily by > > technicalities > > >>> like code versioning and dependencies, but much rather by what is the > > best > > >>> setup to develop this as Flink's way to expand its community towards > > new > > >>> users from a different background. > > >>> > > >>> Curious to hear if that makes sense to you. > > >>> > > >>> Best, > > >>> Stephan > > >>> > > > >
