I'm an apache noob as well, but I assume it should be "org.apache.kudu", since our official apache project name is 'kudu'. I think we settled on kududb.io since we couldn't get kudu.io way back when.
- Dan On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Adar Dembo <a...@cloudera.com> wrote: > I'm +1 to changing it provided Kudu isn't kicked out of Apache. :) As an > Apache newbie, is there any danger of that happening? That is, of the > project being declared not fit for TLP? It'd be a shame if we changed > package names only to have that happen. > > Also, shouldn't it be "org.apache.kududb", not "org.apache.kudu"? > > Separately, how can this be done without breaking compatibility? I thought > package name changes were, by definition, breaking changes. > > > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Dan Burkert <d...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > I'm +1 to changing the package prior to 1.0. Sooner the better, in my > > opinion. I'm -0 to trying to do it in a backwards compatible way, I > don't > > think the upside is worth any effort. > > > > - Dan > > > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans < > jdcry...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Hey devs, > > > > > > I'd like to start a discussion around package names. > > > > > > Right now our packages are prefixed with "org.kududb", a domain that > > AFAIK > > > is owned by Cloudera with a plan to transfer it to the ASF. In a > perfect > > > world they should be named "org.apache.kudu" but it's not a > requirement. > > > Many projects like Apache Netty and Apache OpenOffice use their own > > package > > > prefixes. > > > > > > The main impact of doing this is mostly on the Java side, and it can be > > > done without breaking existing but it would be quite a big effort. > OTOH, > > if > > > the community generally agrees that it should be done, then now's a > good > > > time since we're releasing 1.0 in a little over 2 months. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > J-D > > > > > >
