Naming System for Regions - Active Jira Question

[Alex Grisham]

Hello everyone,

I’ve recently gotten into the Geode community and have been looking for a good 
place to start contributing. I found this Jira regarding Duplicate Region names 
(Geode-6286 
)
 and believe this would be a good place for me to start. Currently, creating a 
region is case sensitive, so that “Region1” is different than “region1”. 
However, this Jira is proposing that the check on region names not be case 
sensitive, and only be focused on spelling. Before I begin working on this 
Jira, I want to check to see if this case sensitive check was purposeful, or if 
a spelling based check is preferred. I appreciate any clarification.

Thanks!

-Alex

Re: Naming System for Regions - Active Jira Question

[Jinmei Liao]

I added the comment on this issue: Geode region names ARE case sensitive.
Should not fix.

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:51 AM Alex Grisham  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I’ve recently gotten into the Geode community and have been looking for a
> good place to start contributing. I found this Jira regarding Duplicate
> Region names (Geode-6286 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-6286?jql=project%20=%20GEODE%20AND%20issuetype%20=%20Bug%20AND%20priority%20in%20(Minor,%20Low,%20Trivial)%20AND%20resolution%20=%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20ASC,%20updated%20DESC>)
> and believe this would be a good place for me to start. Currently, creating
> a region is case sensitive, so that “Region1” is different than “region1”.
> However, this Jira is proposing that the check on region names not be case
> sensitive, and only be focused on spelling. Before I begin working on this
> Jira, I want to check to see if this case sensitive check was purposeful,
> or if a spelling based check is preferred. I appreciate any clarification.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Alex



-- 
Cheers

Jinmei

Re: Naming System for Regions - Active Jira Question

[Kirk Lund]

I went ahead and closed out the ticket as "won't fix". Below is my
explanation:

Changing region names to not be case sensitive would break backwards
compatibility for existing users. It's better for a given user to devise a
standard naming scheme for regions to avoid any issues caused by trying to
access the region using different cases.

For example, if you want to avoid creating two similarly named regions that
vary only by case, then you should standardize on always and only using
lower case characters for naming Geode regions.

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jinmei Liao  wrote:

> I added the comment on this issue: Geode region names ARE case sensitive.
> Should not fix.
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:51 AM Alex Grisham  wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I’ve recently gotten into the Geode community and have been looking for a
> > good place to start contributing. I found this Jira regarding Duplicate
> > Region names (Geode-6286 <
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-6286?jql=project%20=%20GEODE%20AND%20issuetype%20=%20Bug%20AND%20priority%20in%20(Minor,%20Low,%20Trivial)%20AND%20resolution%20=%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20ASC,%20updated%20DESC
> >)
> > and believe this would be a good place for me to start. Currently,
> creating
> > a region is case sensitive, so that “Region1” is different than
> “region1”.
> > However, this Jira is proposing that the check on region names not be
> case
> > sensitive, and only be focused on spelling. Before I begin working on
> this
> > Jira, I want to check to see if this case sensitive check was purposeful,
> > or if a spelling based check is preferred. I appreciate any
> clarification.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -Alex
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers
>
> Jinmei
>

Re: Naming System for Regions - Active Jira Question

[Kirk Lund]

Sorry, Alex! Pick another :)

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:39 PM Kirk Lund  wrote:

> I went ahead and closed out the ticket as "won't fix". Below is my
> explanation:
>
> Changing region names to not be case sensitive would break backwards
> compatibility for existing users. It's better for a given user to devise a
> standard naming scheme for regions to avoid any issues caused by trying to
> access the region using different cases.
>
> For example, if you want to avoid creating two similarly named regions
> that vary only by case, then you should standardize on always and only
> using lower case characters for naming Geode regions.
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jinmei Liao  wrote:
>
>> I added the comment on this issue: Geode region names ARE case sensitive.
>> Should not fix.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:51 AM Alex Grisham 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello everyone,
>> >
>> > I’ve recently gotten into the Geode community and have been looking for
>> a
>> > good place to start contributing. I found this Jira regarding Duplicate
>> > Region names (Geode-6286 <
>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-6286?jql=project%20=%20GEODE%20AND%20issuetype%20=%20Bug%20AND%20priority%20in%20(Minor,%20Low,%20Trivial)%20AND%20resolution%20=%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20ASC,%20updated%20DESC
>> >)
>> > and believe this would be a good place for me to start. Currently,
>> creating
>> > a region is case sensitive, so that “Region1” is different than
>> “region1”.
>> > However, this Jira is proposing that the check on region names not be
>> case
>> > sensitive, and only be focused on spelling. Before I begin working on
>> this
>> > Jira, I want to check to see if this case sensitive check was
>> purposeful,
>> > or if a spelling based check is preferred. I appreciate any
>> clarification.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > -Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jinmei
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC 0: Lightweight RFC Process

[Udo Kohlmeyer]

@Dan,

Thank you for your first attempt at this.

Maybe we should be a rename "Active" to "Completed". "Active" to me 
means that we are currently working on them, rather having completed 
them. I don't view these proposals as features that can be toggled 
on/off (or active/inactive).


Also, I disagree with the approach that proposals that are not actively 
worked on are "Dropped". Which in itself is incorrect as well. Maybe 
there should be an "Icebox" area, that lists a set of proposals that 
have not yet been approved, but also not yet rejected.


I think it is ok to have an "Icebox" of proposals that lists areas of 
improvement we want to target, but as of yet, no concrete proposal has 
yet been submitted. Modularity comes to mind. It is not that we don't 
want to do it, it is just that there is no proposal that has been 
accepted/completed.


--Udo

On 7/12/19 12:57, Dan Smith wrote:

Following up on this, I took a stab at organizing our old proposals into
the buckets on the wiki. We now have:

Under Discussion - Draft and In Discussion proposals
In Development - proposals under active development
Active - Proposals that are completely implemented
Dropped - Proposals that were not approved or development stalled out.

If I moved your proposal to "Dropped" erroneously, please feel free to move
it back! I moved things there that did not appear to have been implemented
or have any recent activity.

I put a few things in "Unknown State." If you know what state these
proposals are in, please move them!

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Project+Proposals+and+Specifications

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 11:20 AM Alexander Murmann 
wrote:


Given discussion here and previous discussion on the PR, I consider this
proposal approved and updated its state accordingly.

I also incorporated Dan's suggestion of moving deprecated proposals and
added a reference to the new process at the top of the Project Proposals
and Specifications page
<
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Project+Proposals+and+Specifications
.

Thank you all for you great feedback throughout this process!

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:07 AM Dan Smith  wrote:


Will moving the page around on the wiki result in dead links to the

draft

version?


No. If you use the share button in the wiki, you get a permanent link to
the page. Even if you just copy the URL from the address bar it doesn't
include the folder the page is in.

-Dan



--
Alexander J. Murmann
(650) 283-1933

Re: Naming System for Regions - Active Jira Question

[Michael Stolz]

Changing the case sensitivity might break existing users' apps that use
Geode.


--
Mike Stolz
Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache
Mobile: +1-631-835-4771

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 6:24 PM Jinmei Liao  wrote:

> I added the comment on this issue: Geode region names ARE case sensitive.
> Should not fix.
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:51 AM Alex Grisham  wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I’ve recently gotten into the Geode community and have been looking for a
> > good place to start contributing. I found this Jira regarding Duplicate
> > Region names (Geode-6286 <
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-6286?jql=project%20=%20GEODE%20AND%20issuetype%20=%20Bug%20AND%20priority%20in%20(Minor,%20Low,%20Trivial)%20AND%20resolution%20=%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20ASC,%20updated%20DESC
> >)
> > and believe this would be a good place for me to start. Currently,
> creating
> > a region is case sensitive, so that “Region1” is different than
> “region1”.
> > However, this Jira is proposing that the check on region names not be
> case
> > sensitive, and only be focused on spelling. Before I begin working on
> this
> > Jira, I want to check to see if this case sensitive check was purposeful,
> > or if a spelling based check is preferred. I appreciate any
> clarification.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -Alex
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers
>
> Jinmei
>

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC 0: Lightweight RFC Process

[Dan Smith]

@Udo

I like both of your suggestions. Most of the proposals that I put in
"Dropped" still seemed like good ideas, perhaps even things we'd already
agreed to on the mailing list, but hadn't seen any recent development.

If no one objects, I'll go ahead and rename Active->Completed and
Dropped->Icebox. Should we change the name of the state in the Lightweight
RFC Process
?

-Dan

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:57 PM Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:

> @Dan,
>
> Thank you for your first attempt at this.
>
> Maybe we should be a rename "Active" to "Completed". "Active" to me
> means that we are currently working on them, rather having completed
> them. I don't view these proposals as features that can be toggled
> on/off (or active/inactive).
>
> Also, I disagree with the approach that proposals that are not actively
> worked on are "Dropped". Which in itself is incorrect as well. Maybe
> there should be an "Icebox" area, that lists a set of proposals that
> have not yet been approved, but also not yet rejected.
>
> I think it is ok to have an "Icebox" of proposals that lists areas of
> improvement we want to target, but as of yet, no concrete proposal has
> yet been submitted. Modularity comes to mind. It is not that we don't
> want to do it, it is just that there is no proposal that has been
> accepted/completed.
>
> --Udo
>
> On 7/12/19 12:57, Dan Smith wrote:
> > Following up on this, I took a stab at organizing our old proposals into
> > the buckets on the wiki. We now have:
> >
> > Under Discussion - Draft and In Discussion proposals
> > In Development - proposals under active development
> > Active - Proposals that are completely implemented
> > Dropped - Proposals that were not approved or development stalled out.
> >
> > If I moved your proposal to "Dropped" erroneously, please feel free to
> move
> > it back! I moved things there that did not appear to have been
> implemented
> > or have any recent activity.
> >
> > I put a few things in "Unknown State." If you know what state these
> > proposals are in, please move them!
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Project+Proposals+and+Specifications
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 11:20 AM Alexander Murmann 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Given discussion here and previous discussion on the PR, I consider this
> >> proposal approved and updated its state accordingly.
> >>
> >> I also incorporated Dan's suggestion of moving deprecated proposals and
> >> added a reference to the new process at the top of the Project Proposals
> >> and Specifications page
> >> <
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Project+Proposals+and+Specifications
> >> .
> >>
> >> Thank you all for you great feedback throughout this process!
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:07 AM Dan Smith  wrote:
> >>
>  Will moving the page around on the wiki result in dead links to the
> >> draft
>  version?
> 
> >>> No. If you use the share button in the wiki, you get a permanent link
> to
> >>> the page. Even if you just copy the URL from the address bar it doesn't
> >>> include the folder the page is in.
> >>>
> >>> -Dan
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alexander J. Murmann
> >> (650) 283-1933
> >>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC 0: Lightweight RFC Process

[Dale Emery]

Hi Dan,

> RFC Process
> ?

I’d like the language to match. For stuff that has been implemented, I like 
Implemented, but Completed is also fine.

Do we have a way to identify proposals for things that are intended to be 
ongoing? An example is the proposal for Instrumenting Geode Code. The intention 
is that it applies each time we add or change instrumentation. It will never be 
Completed.

Cheers,
Dale

—
Dale Emery
dem...@pivotal.io



> On Jul 15, 2019, at 4:52 PM, Dan Smith  wrote:
> 
> @Udo
> 
> I like both of your suggestions. Most of the proposals that I put in
> "Dropped" still seemed like good ideas, perhaps even things we'd already
> agreed to on the mailing list, but hadn't seen any recent development.
> 
> If no one objects, I'll go ahead and rename Active->Completed and
> Dropped->Icebox. Should we change the name of the state in the Lightweight
> RFC Process
> ?
> 
> -Dan
> 
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:57 PM Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:
> 
>> @Dan,
>> 
>> Thank you for your first attempt at this.
>> 
>> Maybe we should be a rename "Active" to "Completed". "Active" to me
>> means that we are currently working on them, rather having completed
>> them. I don't view these proposals as features that can be toggled
>> on/off (or active/inactive).
>> 
>> Also, I disagree with the approach that proposals that are not actively
>> worked on are "Dropped". Which in itself is incorrect as well. Maybe
>> there should be an "Icebox" area, that lists a set of proposals that
>> have not yet been approved, but also not yet rejected.
>> 
>> I think it is ok to have an "Icebox" of proposals that lists areas of
>> improvement we want to target, but as of yet, no concrete proposal has
>> yet been submitted. Modularity comes to mind. It is not that we don't
>> want to do it, it is just that there is no proposal that has been
>> accepted/completed.
>> 
>> --Udo
>> 
>> On 7/12/19 12:57, Dan Smith wrote:
>>> Following up on this, I took a stab at organizing our old proposals into
>>> the buckets on the wiki. We now have:
>>> 
>>> Under Discussion - Draft and In Discussion proposals
>>> In Development - proposals under active development
>>> Active - Proposals that are completely implemented
>>> Dropped - Proposals that were not approved or development stalled out.
>>> 
>>> If I moved your proposal to "Dropped" erroneously, please feel free to
>> move
>>> it back! I moved things there that did not appear to have been
>> implemented
>>> or have any recent activity.
>>> 
>>> I put a few things in "Unknown State." If you know what state these
>>> proposals are in, please move them!
>>> 
>>> 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Project+Proposals+and+Specifications
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 11:20 AM Alexander Murmann 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Given discussion here and previous discussion on the PR, I consider this
 proposal approved and updated its state accordingly.
 
 I also incorporated Dan's suggestion of moving deprecated proposals and
 added a reference to the new process at the top of the Project Proposals
 and Specifications page
 <
 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Project+Proposals+and+Specifications
 .
 
 Thank you all for you great feedback throughout this process!
 
 On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:07 AM Dan Smith  wrote:
 
>> Will moving the page around on the wiki result in dead links to the
 draft
>> version?
>> 
> No. If you use the share button in the wiki, you get a permanent link
>> to
> the page. Even if you just copy the URL from the address bar it doesn't
> include the folder the page is in.
> 
> -Dan
> 
 
 --
 Alexander J. Murmann
 (650) 283-1933
 
>>