Re: Adding Avro Module to encapsulate AvroFileInput Operator and AvroToPojo Operator

There is no right subject line for this thread because multiple issues were conflated into a single PR. Furthermore, this discussion should take place before the work is done, not afterwards. The reviewer of the PR should know the contribution process and guide the contributor to ensure no effort

Re: [VOTE] Major version change for Apex Library (Malhar)

I am not against a new major version. I am against the reason for it. Please include a list of functional feature set in the vote for 4.0, not just package name changes. Regards, Ashwin. On Aug 25, 2017 5:02 PM, "Thomas Weise" wrote: > Always welcome. But before you go.. What

Re: [VOTE] Major version change for Apex Library (Malhar)

Always welcome. But before you go.. What do you mean by rigged? Your vote? ;) Why do I get the impression someone could be pulling strings to stop a new major version after the changes were discussed for such a long time? Why not let the community continue development, it does not prevent anyone

Re: [VOTE] Major version change for Apex Library (Malhar)

Haha I missed your personal attacks Thomas. Love it! This voting thread is rigged, I am out :) Anyway - as a user when a project announces a new major version - I would expect it to include some major features. I stand by my vote until we associate and list some major features with the major

Re: [VOTE] Major version change for Apex Library (Malhar)

Welcome back to the mailing list (it has been 6 months according to the archive?). The topic seems to be important enough, so hopefully you had the chance to review the related discussion threads as these already address some of what repeats here? On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Ashwin Chandra

Re: Adding Avro Module to encapsulate AvroFileInput Operator and AvroToPojo Operator

Why not create a new maven project for avro, isn't the idea to separate out operators by functionality into their own maven modules on an ongoing basis instead of the uber contrib. Do you have specific concerns about the viability of the avro operator, if so could you enumerate them. We have used

Re: [VOTE] Major version change for Apex Library (Malhar)

I agree that it makes the project consistent to have the package names changed to org.apache.apex. However, it seems like an unnecessary overhead to make a major version change for just changing package names. I may be wrong but is there a major feature set in the proposed vote that deems for a

Re: [DISCUSS] changing project name to apex-library

Like I said, 1.x is not accurate, the project has already gone through 1.x, 2.x and it is at the version it is now. Resetting to 1.x or 1.0-SNAPSHOT is arbitrary. When the project was transitioned from non-apache open source to apache, a few years back, a case could have been made to reset the

Re: [DISCUSS] changing project name to apex-library

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Thomas Weise wrote: > There is obviously disagreement with regard to version reset and you have > already voted for 4.0. > Yes and my position is still the same. I think there is a general consensus with 4.0, the additional concern/ask from

Re: [VOTE] Major version change for Apex Library (Malhar)

I'm +1 on option 2, second +1 on option 1. Having two names, in our case Apex and Malhar, in a project tend to confuse people, especially since the prefix "mal" usually has a negative connotation in English. David On Aug 23, 2017 3:17 PM, "Sergey Golovko" wrote: > -1

[jira] [Commented] (APEXCORE-775) StramClientUtils.getApexDFSRootDir() incorrectly sets DT_DFS_ROOT_DIR in the configuration object

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-775?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16142011#comment-16142011 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on APEXCORE-775: - sanjaypujare opened a new pull request #569:

[jira] [Commented] (APEXCORE-775) StramClientUtils.getApexDFSRootDir() incorrectly sets DT_DFS_ROOT_DIR in the configuration object

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-775?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16142010#comment-16142010 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on APEXCORE-775: - sanjaypujare closed pull request #569: APEXCORE-775

Re: [DISCUSS] changing project name to apex-library

I understand the preference and also explained why version and name change is preferable in my view and what is broken with the current name and version. The preference can and should be reflected in the vote, but at the end it's the community decision. I don't see why -1 would be a valid vote

Re: [DISCUSS] changing project name to apex-library

There is obviously disagreement with regard to version reset and you have already voted for 4.0. A larger issue though is the attempt to stop any other proposal without valid reason. If community members are willing to invest their efforts to improve the project and provide the justification for

Re: [DISCUSS] changing project name to apex-library

No, concerns for the changing the project name and version remain the same. I think the current version numbering train and name are fine and prefer we move forward and not backward by resetting things back to 1.x, which I believe is not accurate for the project. The name change is unnecessary,

Re: [DISCUSS] changing project name to apex-library

Which specific concern has not been addressed? The need to for the change has been discussed and no valid reason why it cannot be done was provided. On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Amol Kekre wrote: > Vlad, > Concerns have not been addressed. There is a disconnect on

Re: [DISCUSS] changing project name to apex-library

Vlad, Concerns have not been addressed. There is a disconnect on the need to do this now, and then on how to do so. Thks, Amol E:a...@datatorrent.com | M: 510-449-2606 | Twitter: @*amolhkekre* www.datatorrent.com On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Vlad Rozov wrote: > How

Re: [DISCUSS] changing project name to apex-library

How do we move from here? If all the concerns regarding version and artifactId change are addressed we should move forward with the vote, if not, it will be good to raise them here rather than in the voting thread. Thank you, Vlad On 8/24/17 10:26, Thomas Weise wrote: On Thu, Aug 24, 2017