streams-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Blackmon <st...@blackmon.org>
Subject Re: Why separate Streams-Master and Streams-Project ?
Date Thu, 15 Dec 2016 21:27:04 GMT
This could be a breaking change to dependent projects.

For example, if your internal streams repo's parent pom is streams-master
and streams-master suddenly disappears in the latest release, that’s going
to take some refactoring to fix.

Additionally, there’s significant impact to poms, to documentation, to
Jenkins, to the project website build and deployment process.

For these reason I think it should not be rushed into a maintenance release.

Steve

On November 26, 2016 at 1:22:23 PM, Suneel Marthi (suneel.marthi@gmail.com)
wrote:

Do we wanna target this for 0.4.1 or 0.5 release ?

On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 10:00 AM, sblackmon <sblackmon@apache.org> wrote:

> Agreed - reopened STREAMS-255.
> On November 25, 2016 at 2:00:51 PM, Suneel Marthi (smarthi@apache.org)
> wrote:
>
> Seems like we have consensus in merging streams-master and
streams-project.
> If correct, let's target this for 0.5 release.
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Ate Douma <ate@douma.nu> wrote:
>
> > 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message