apex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergey Golovko <ser...@datatorrent.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Major version change for Apex Library (Malhar)
Date Wed, 23 Aug 2017 22:17:20 GMT
-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.


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.
> >
> >

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message