streams-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ate Douma <...@douma.nu>
Subject Re: Why separate Streams-Master and Streams-Project ?
Date Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:21:26 GMT
On 2016-11-14 12:22, Suneel Marthi wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:27 AM, sblackmon <sblackmon@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On November 11, 2016 at 5:17:11 PM, Matt Franklin (
>> m.ben.franklin@gmail.com(mailto:m.ben.franklin@gmail.com)) wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:12 PM Suneel Marthi wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why do we have 3 separate projects - Streams-master, Streams-project
>> and
>>>> streams-examples?
>>>>
>>>
>> The split between streams-master and streams-project has been there since
>> the project started, I think a legacy of how Rave was organized. The
>> feedback related to naming (that ‘master’ is confusing given the source
>> code is in git) makes sense to me.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> While it may make sense to keep streams-examples separate from the
>> others,
>>>> what's the reasoning behind keeping separate streams-master and
>>>> streams-project ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Keeping the master pom separate from the rest of the project is fairly
>>> common within Apache. It allows things that don't change often to be
>>> centralized, such as developer info, etc. I am +1 for keeping it on a
>>> separate release cycle and +0 for integrating it back into the main code
>>> repo.
>>>
>> I’m -1 to separate release cycles - In reality we’re making a change to
>> the POM and/or the website, currently organized under streams-master, every
>> release cycle, and it would be confusing for developers if the versions
>> became disconnected.
>>
>
> I am  -1 too for separate release cycles. I can see streams-master being
> modified/updated on a regular basis, given that most other dependency
> projects like Spark, Flink etc are on a 2 month minor release cycle and a 4
> month major release cycle (on an average).

Maybe the real problem is that streams-master is modified/updated on a regular
basis.

The original idea was to (only) separate out and centralize the general things
(like issueManagement, licensing, supported java version, developerInfo, 
common/generic plugin configurations, etc.) which should not need to be modified
on a regular basis. And thus also shouldn't need to be released often.

However the master pom now indeed also defines practically all dependencies,
which IMO should not (need to) be defined there.

I've no real problem (+/-0) moving streams-master into streams-project, however
that will then require streams-examples to directly depend on streams-project,
while currently it also uses streams-master as parent.

 From a (better) separation of concern I still think using a separate
streams-master (which by all means can be renamed like to streams-parent) would
be better, certainly to allow and support better modularity and independent 
release cycles of subsets of streams in the future.
In the current state however there isn't much need for this, yet, and separating
it up again when needed in the future won't be a big deal either.

So therefore +0 if others think this is useful to do now.

Ate

>
> In light of the above argument, I think it makes sense to merge
> streams-master and streams-project.
>
>
>>
>> I’m +1 to merging streams-master into streams-project - I can’t think of
>> any reasons that wouldn’t work, it would simplify build, tests, CI,
>> releases, and documentation.  We could start by just moving the pom and
>> setting the parent of streams-project as a streams-parent.xml within the
>> streams-project module and putting everything except for <build> and
>> <plugins> in the parent.
>>>
>>> IMO, the examples definitely deserve their own repo and release cycle.
>>>
>> I agree.
>>>
>>>> Presently, we need to build, deploy, verify and validate 3 separate
>>>> projects for a release to pass, unless I am completely
>>>> misunderstanding/missing something here I feel streams-master and
>>>> streams-project can both be one project.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We don't have to release master unless there is a change to dist
>>> management, developers, etc.
>>>
>> In reality we’re making a change to the POM and/or the website, currently
>> organized under streams-master, every release cycle, and it would be
>> confusing for developers if the versions became disconnected.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> thoughts?
>>>>
>>
>>
>



Mime
View raw message