+1 great work team ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Director, Information Retrieval and Data Science Group (IRDS) Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA WWW: http://irds.usc.edu/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 6/1/16, 11:29 AM, "Mike Percy" <mpe...@apache.org> wrote: >Yeah the typical thing to use is the subdomain (in this case >org.apache.kudu). > >A few thoughts about package naming: > >1. While using the apache subdomain for Java package names is encouraged, >and often the most obvious thing to do (i.e. when you're starting from >scratch), it's not required. If we don't do it then a few people will ask >why, and complain about it, and make a big deal out of it accusing the >project of some nefarious intent, but I think ultimately we wouldn't have >to change the package names since it's not a licensing issue. >2. If it's not too much effort to do it in a backwards-compatible way, it's >probably worth doing for (a) branding and (b) to avoid the distraction of >the above argument. >3. IMHO it would be preferable to get sign-off on the Apache Kudu name ( >see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-93 ) before we >spend effort on something that we might have to change again later (imagine >having to maintain 2 sets of facade classes). > >Mike > >On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Dan Burkert <d...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
