apex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vlad Rozov <vro...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Major version change for Apex Library (Malhar)
Date Sat, 02 Sep 2017 02:48:45 GMT
I have not seen any active discussion on the topic since Monday and I 
don't see how a full consensus in the subject can be reached as no any 
other solution is proposed other than to wait with no clear time-frame 
when package names may be unified and follow Apache recommendation.

Thank you,

Vlad


On 9/1/17 18:27, Amol Kekre wrote:
> This vote was not done per process. The discussion was still on going. A
> decision that is more of code impact (consensus) is being called a
> procedural decision (majority vote). Moreover end of vote day/time was also
> not called ahead of the vote to determine when the vote ends. These seem to
> be a premise that only a few care about project. All red flags.
>
> Thks,
> Amol
>
>
> E:amol@datatorrent.com | M: 510-449-2606 | Twitter: @*amolhkekre*
>
> www.datatorrent.com
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Thomas Weise <thw@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> The first step in allowing a real community to grow would be to wear the
>> project hat, participate in discussions as individual, and consider how to
>> enable changes vs. trying to block active community members that contribute
>> on their own time from taking the project forward.
>>
>> Versioning and parallel release lines exist for a reason. Nothing needs to
>> be reinvented, everything that is needed to not disrupt existing users
>> while allowing for changes that evolve a product already exists.
>>
>> A number of folks don't wear the project hat, don't contribute in a
>> constructive manner and are otherwise not actively visible in the project.
>> Do they participate in this discussion out of their own interest or because
>> they are paid to do so? That combined with a look at the contributor stats
>> should provide a fairly good orientation.
>>
>> This discussion here is about making changes and evolve the project, not to
>> organize a DataTorrent & friends blockade. Put your own effort, research,
>> follow a discussion thread, present your own opinion. Separately, it will
>> be necessary to take up the topic of project independence at the PMC level.
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Sandeep Deshmukh <
>> sandeep.deshmukh@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>> I totally agree with Sandesh. Things are being pushed when there is clear
>>> disagreement. If Apex has to grow the community, it can't grow using
>> divide
>>> and conquer method.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Sandesh Hegde <sandesh@datatorrent.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Using all the technicalities and loop holes, we can declare many votes
>>>> invalid. What purpose does it solve? This thread is dividing the
>>> community,
>>>> instead of recognizing the difference if we move forward with this,
>> there
>>>> is a chance that Apex will alienate many contributors. What's the end
>>> game
>>>> here? At what cost?
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:31 AM Thomas Weise <thw@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you would need a separate discussion/vote on changes not being
>>>>> reflected in master that you make to a branch (current procedure).
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding procedural vote, the decision to start development towards
>>> new
>>>>> major release is a longer term decision, not just code change.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval
>>>>>
>>>>> "Refers to a vote (sense 1) which has completed with at least three
>>>> binding
>>>>> +1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes. ( I.e. , a simple majority
>>>> with a
>>>>> minimum quorum of three positive votes.) Note that in votes requiring
>>>>> majority approval a -1 vote is simply a vote against, not a veto.
>>> Compare
>>>>> Consensus Approval. See also the description of the voting process."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For code modifications the rules are different, -1 is a veto that
>> needs
>>>> to
>>>>> have a valid technical reason why the change cannot be made.
>> Otherwise
>>> it
>>>>> is void. None of the -1s in the vote result provide such
>> justification.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Pramod Immaneni <
>>>> pramod@datatorrent.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thomas,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wouldn't you need to call a separate procedural vote for whether
>>>> changes
>>>>>> cannot be allowed into 3.x without requiring they be submitted to
>> 4.x
>>>> as
>>>>>> there was a disagreement there? Also, I am not sure that the
>>> procedural
>>>>>> vote argument can be used here for 4.x given that it involves
>>>>> modifications
>>>>>> to existing code. I would say we should drive towards getting a
>>>> consensus
>>>>>> by addressing the concerns folks have about 4.x.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Thomas Weise <thw@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> There wasn't any more discussion on this, so here is the result:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Version 4.0 as major version change from 3.x
>>>>>>> ====================================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 (7)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thomas Weise (PMC)
>>>>>>> Ananth G
>>>>>>> Vlad Rozov (PMC)
>>>>>>> Munagala Ramanath (committer)
>>>>>>> Pramod Immaneni (PMC)
>>>>>>> Sanjay Pujare
>>>>>>> David Yan (PMC)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -1 (3)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amol Kekre (PMC)
>>>>>>> Sergey Golovko
>>>>>>> Ashwin Chandra Putta (committer)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Version 1.0 with simultaneous change of Maven artifact IDs
>>>>>>> ===============================================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 (5)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thomas Weise (PMC)
>>>>>>> Ananth G
>>>>>>> Vlad Rozov (PMC)
>>>>>>> Munagala Ramanath (committer)
>>>>>>> David Yan (PMC)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -1 (5)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pramod Immaneni (PMC)
>>>>>>> Sanjay Pujare
>>>>>>> Amol Kekre (PMC)
>>>>>>> Sergey Golovko
>>>>>>> Ashwin Chandra Putta (committer)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RESULT
>>>>>>> =======
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vote for option 1 (major version 4.x) *passes* with majority
rule
>>>> [1].
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Thomas Weise <thw@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> This is to formalize the major version change for Malhar
>>> discussed
>>>> in
>>>>>>> [1].
>>>>>>>> There are two options for major version change. Major version
>>>> change
>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> rename legacy packages to org.apache.apex sub packages while
>>>>> retaining
>>>>>>> file
>>>>>>>> history in git. Other cleanup such as removing deprecated
code
>> is
>>>>> also
>>>>>>>> expected.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Version 4.0 as major version change from 3.x
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. Version 1.0 with simultaneous change of Maven artifact
IDs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please refer to the discussion thread [1] for reasoning behind
>>> both
>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> options.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please vote on both options. Primary vote for your preferred
>>>> option,
>>>>>>>> secondary for the other. Secondary vote can be used when
>> counting
>>>>>> primary
>>>>>>>> vote alone isn't conclusive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/
>>>>>> bd1db8a2d01e23b0c0ab98a785f6ee
>>>>>>>> 9492a1ac9e52d422568a46e5f3@%3Cdev.apex.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>


Thank you,

Vlad

Mime
View raw message