flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sebastian Schelter <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Using Scala to reimplement the JobManager and TaskManager
Date Wed, 03 Sep 2014 23:25:36 GMT
Hi Ufuk,

It is up to the project where to vote upfront before working on a code
change or whether to do it afterwards.

--sebastian



2014-09-03 15:55 GMT-07:00 Ufuk Celebi <uce@apache.org>:

> Hey Daniel,
>
> I am sure that Till didn't try to set up the vote towards his desired
> outcome. Actually it should conform to the Apache Voting Process.
>
> Quoting from http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html:
>
> "Expressing Votes: +1, 0, -1, and Fractions
>
> The voting process in Apache may seem more than a little weird if you've
> never encountered it before. Votes are represented as numbers between -1
> and +1, with '-1' meaning 'no' and '+1' meaning 'yes.'
>
> [...]
>
> +0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with this.'
> -0: 'I won't get in the way, but I'd rather we didn't do this.'
>
> [...]
>
> Vetos
>
> A code-modification proposal may be stopped dead in its tracks by a -1 vote
> by a qualified voter. This constitutes a veto, and it cannot be overruled
> nor overridden by anyone. Vetos stand until and unless withdrawn by their
> casters.
>
> To prevent vetos from being used capriciously, they must be accompanied by
> a technical justification showing why the change is bad (opens a security
> exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A veto without a
> justification is invalid and has no weight."
>
> The only thing I'm not sure about is whether "upfront" votes are usual. If
> this was a code modification (PR or commit), the way that this is setup
> should definitely be OK. Maybe a mentor can help with this?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Daniel Warneke <warneke@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > sorry, but I think the way this vote is set up is already biased towards
> > the author’s desired outcome. Two out of the three possible options
> > effectively lead to the switch to Scala. Moreover, the -1 option requires
> > the voter to explain his/her decision, the +1 option does not.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> >     Daniel
> >
> >
> > Am 03.09.2014 22:58, schrieb Till Rohrmann:
> >
> >  In the wake of replacing the current proprietary RPC service with an
> Akka
> >> service, we have to rewrite the JobManager and TaskManager. Akka is
> >> implemented in Scala and offers bindings for Scala as well as Java.
> Since
> >> the implementation using Scala would probably be neater and less
> verbose,
> >> we would like to use Scala for the reimplementation. That would imply
> that
> >> Flink's runtime module would become a mixed Java and Scala project.
> >>
> >> So please vote whether Scala should be used for rewriting the JobManager
> >> and TaskManager or not.
> >>
> >> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> >>
> >> [ ] +1 Using Scala for reimplementation
> >> [ ]  0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with using Scala
> >> [ ] -1 Do not use Scala because...
> >>
> >>
> >
>

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