flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Using Scala to reimplement the JobManager and TaskManager
Date Wed, 03 Sep 2014 23:50:55 GMT
You can create patch then ask for VOTE as needed but with a lot of
work involved I think it would be better to get some kind of agreement
of the proposed solution before continuing.

- Henry

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Sebastian Schelter <ssc@apache.org> wrote:
> 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 Vetos stand until and unless withdrawn by their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
View raw message