apex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org>
Subject Re: -1 or veto voting
Date Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:08:28 GMT
For -1 to be valid there *must* be *technical* justification(s) not to 
proceed with the code change. Without such justification -1 is 
considered to be void/invalid [1].

I don't see any possible *technical* justification not to proceed with 
the package rename as it was done in the past by a large number of 
Apache (and not only Apache) projects  and nothing bad happened (no 
performance degradation, no introduction of security vulnerability) and 
projects remained usable by their users. With the current IDEs, it is a 
question of 5 minutes to complete necessary modifications.

Both Apache Felix and Apache Groovy (as well as Apache Apex) are split 
package projects. There is mix and match of org.apache.* and other 
package names (org.osgi, groovy, com.datatorrent). IMO, this is a bad 
practice and I don't think that Apex community should use those projects 
as a best practice examples. Majority of Apache projects consistently 
use org.apache package and IMO that simplifies user and community 
experience.

Majority of malhar library classes are excluded from semantic versioning 
check and are not subject of backward compatibility/stable API 
guarantee. Due to that there never be a good reason to change major 
version as backward incompatible changes are introduced silently and 
without proper semantic versioning.

Thank you,

Vlad

[1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

On 8/23/17 15:17, Sergey Golovko wrote:
> -1 for the option 2
>
> I don't think it makes sense to rush to rename the package name. There are
> Apache Java projects that use the original package names after migration to
> Apache Software Foundation. For instance,
>
> Apache Felix <https://projects.apache.org/project.html?felix> (org.osgi)
> Apache Groovy <https://projects.apache.org/project.html?groovy> (groovy)
>
> Personally I don't like the idea to rename package names for any existing
> tools and applications. It can just be a big confusion for users without
> any real benefits.
>
> -1 for the option 1
>
> I see only one valid reason to change the major version now. It is the full
> refactoring of the code without supporting of any backward compatibility.
> If we are going to make the package refactoring we need to change the major
> version. If we are not going to do it now, it does not make sense to
> change the major version. I don't think it makes sense to vote for the two
> options separately.
>
> Thanks,
> Sergey
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Thomas Weise <thw@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> So far everyone else has voted +1 on option 1. Your -1 is not a veto
>> (unlike your previous -1 on a pull request), but your response also states
>> "I am for option 1" and that you want to have the branch release-3
>> included. So why don't you include that into your vote for option 1 as a
>> condition, since that's what is going to happen anyways.
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Amol Kekre <amol@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On just voting part, I remain -1 on both options
>>>
>>> Thks
>>> Amol
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Amol Kekre <amol@datatorrent.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am -1 on option 2. There is no need to do so, as going back on versions
>>> at this stage has consequences to Apex users.
>>>
>>> I am for option 1, but I want to propose explicit change to the text.
>> Based
>>> on verbatim text, I am voting -1 on option 1. I believe in the original
>>> discussion thread there was talk about continuing release-3 that should
>> be
>>> explicit in the vote.
>>>
>>>


Thank you,

Vlad

Mime
View raw message