streams-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Suneel Marthi <suneel.mar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Why separate Streams-Master and Streams-Project ?
Date Mon, 14 Nov 2016 11:22:03 GMT
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).

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