aurora-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Zameer Manji <zma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Forking twitter-commons into our tree
Date Fri, 21 Aug 2015 17:47:48 GMT
Maxim,

I really think it is important to minimize the changes made to the twitter
commons files so one can reference the twitter commons sha bc7248d to see
the history of the files.

I filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1442 to track updating
the copyright headers and moving the files into the namespace.

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Maxim Khutornenko <maxim@apache.org>
wrote:

> I am afraid the upcoming namespace changing sweeper is going to be
> even more monstrous as it will touch all of commons and almost all of
> the aurora codebase.
>
> One alternative could be bring all commons in with all headers and
> apache namespace changes but still reference published external
> commons jars on aurora side. Then switch to internal commons and
> adjust aurora imports as a follow up. That would at least avoid the
> churn in commons files.
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Henry Saputra <henry.saputra@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > +1 for doing it in follow up commit
> >
> > On Friday, August 21, 2015, Zameer Manji <zmanji@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Jake,
> >>
> >> Can the namespace rename be done in a follow up commit? Otherwise the
> >> review/commit touches every single Java file and becomes very difficult
> to
> >> understand.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Jake Farrell <jfarrell@apache.org
> >> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Since the IP has been donated to the ASF the namespace
> com/twitter/common
> >> > has to be switch to the Apache namespace org/apache/aurora
> >> >
> >> > -Jake
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Zameer Manji <zmanji@apache.org
> >> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I was able to put up the review for the fork:
> >> > > https://reviews.apache.org/r/37666/.
> >> > >
> >> > > Please take a look if you are interested.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Kevin Sweeney <kevints@apache.org
> >> <javascript:;>>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > +1, I suspect we'll find several things that can be replaced
by
> the
> >> > Java
> >> > > 8
> >> > > > standard library or newer versions of Guava and Guice.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Zameer Manji <zmanji@apache.org
> >> <javascript:;>>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Just to be clear, I'm proposing forking the java parts only.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Joseph Smith <
> yasumoto7@gmail.com
> >> <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Also a (tough to concede) +1. Although I’m not a
fan of the
> fork,
> >> > it
> >> > > > will
> >> > > > > > help improve velocity and empower a migration away
from
> twitter
> >> > > common.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Jul 3, 2015, at 8:15 PM, Bill Farner <wfarner@apache.org
> >> <javascript:;>>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > That's roughly the eventual plan, which this move
would
> help us
> >> > > > > > facilitate.
> >> > > > > > > We use guava heavily already, most of our current
> dependence is
> >> > on
> >> > > ZK
> >> > > > > > and args handling code...but we would look towards
dep-shallow
> >> > > > > alternatives.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >    _____________________________
> >> > > > > > > From: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@gmail.com
<javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 3, 2015 8:03 AM
> >> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Forking twitter-commons into our
tree
> >> > > > > > > To:  <dev@aurora.apache.org <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > > Cc: Jake Farrell <jfarrell@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I'll see what I can do about IP clearance.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > For giggles, how much work do you think it would
be to shed
> >> > > > > > twitter-commons
> >> > > > > > > and just rely on guava and other what I would
consider more
> >> > > standard
> >> > > > > > > libraries.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Bill Farner <
> >> wfarner@apache.org <javascript:;>
> >> > >
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> Thanks, Jake!
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> -=Bill
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Jake Farrell
<
> >> > jfarrell@apache.org <javascript:;>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >>> yes, makes it easier to donate when its
Apache License
> 2.0,
> >> but
> >> > > > still
> >> > > > > > >>> requires the IP clearance [1], which is
handled through
> the
> >> > IPMC.
> >> > > > > This
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >>> required so there is an audit trail of
that software being
> >> > > donated
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >>> ASF
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> -Jake
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> [1]: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Bill
Farner <
> >> > wfarner@apache.org <javascript:;>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>>> Jake - i'm not fully versed on licenses,
but is that true
> >> even
> >> > > > > though
> >> > > > > > >>> it's
> >> > > > > > >>>> all Apache License 2.0?
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>> -=Bill
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Jake
Farrell <
> >> > > jfarrell@apache.org <javascript:;>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>> no objections, but we would have
to get an IP clearance
> doc
> >> > > from
> >> > > > > > >>> Twitter
> >> > > > > > >>>>> for this code in order to bring
this code into the ASF
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>> -Jake
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:20 PM,
Zameer Manji <
> >> > > zmanji@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> Hey,
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> Aurora depends heavily on
twitter-commons for lots of
> >> > > > > > >> functionality.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> However upstream is not very
active and I suspect that
> it
> >> > will
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > >>> less
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> active in the future. Currently
we depend on artifacts
> >> > > published
> >> > > > > > >> from
> >> > > > > > >>>>> this
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> project which causes us to
depend on older versions of
> >> guava
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > > >>> guice.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> As a result, it seems that
will be difficult to address
> >> > > tickets
> >> > > > > > >> like
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> AURORA-1380 <
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1380>
> >> > > > > > >>>> without
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> changing something. I propose
we fork all of the java
> >> > portions
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> twitter-commons into our tree,
remove the parts we
> don't
> >> use
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > > >>> update
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> guava and guice so we can
move forward on this front.
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> What are people's thoughts
on this?
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> --
> >> > > > > > >>>>>> Zameer Manji
> >> > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > Cheers,
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Chris Aniszczyk
> >> > > > > > > http://aniszczyk.org
> >> > > > > > > +1 512 961 6719
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > Zameer Manji
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > <%2B1%20512%20961%206719>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Zameer Manji
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Zameer Manji
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>
> --
> Zameer Manji
>
>

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