I agree. Unless there is a benefit or compelling reason, renames are generally not worth the unnecessary work.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 1:13 PM Hussein Awala <huss...@awala.fr> wrote: > I agree with Russell that the spec should remain language-agnostic. > However, for the Java client (and other integrations implemented in > Java), +1 for moving them to a new repository. Alternatively, we could > rename the current repository and relocate the spec to a new repository > under the existing name. > The ideal time for this work could be during the development of Iceberg v2. > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 8:52 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> OK, thanks guys for your feedback. >> >> It was a more "open question" to give more "consistency" (like other >> projects did, Arrow, Parquet, etc). But definitely not strongly >> required :) >> >> Let's skip this one for now. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 7:29 PM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > I'm not in favor of the rename at this point. >> > >> > This just seems unnecessary and since the java implementation is the >> reference implementation I don't think there's real confusion caused by >> leaving the repo as it is. >> > >> > I know this has been done in other projects like `parquet-mr` -> >> `parquet-java`, but that was more due to the `mr` designation being >> confusing and obsolete. >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 8:58 AM Russell Spitzer < >> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> I generally dislike renames unless we are going to get some tangible >> benefit out of it. Consistency >> >> is never something I really care that much about in repository names >> since no one is really using >> >> those on a daily basis and they aren't really used programmatically. >> >> >> >> If we did do this rename would we be breaking all old hyper links to >> the repo? If so, I think I'd say I'm a -1. I also >> >> find it more confusing in projects where this has happened and the >> repository is retained for old >> >> links but the README just says, go to XXXX instead. >> >> >> >> All that said, I think iceberg-java is the right name of the java impl >> and the spec should probably be split >> >> into another repo. But that's what I would have done with perfect >> foresight before we got to the current state. >> >> >> >> So depending on the impact to existing links and references I'm >> between a -1 and +0. >> >> >> >> Things that would convince me to be a +1 >> >> >> >> Frequency of how often the single repository is confusing to folks, >> and does this affect them on a daily basis? >> >> Would we be able to route all requests to the old repository >> automatically to the new one? >> >> Would impacts on current developers be minimal? How many dev setups >> need to be changed for this to work? >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:21 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi folks, >> >>> >> >>> I know it's not an easy one, but I would like to start this >> discussion :) >> >>> >> >>> We now have several repositories: >> >>> - iceberg-cpp >> >>> - iceberg-go >> >>> - iceberg-python >> >>> - iceberg-rust >> >>> >> >>> To be consistent, what about renaming iceberg to iceberg-java ? >> >>> >> >>> I know it's not only Java (it's also specs and site), but it would be >> >>> clearer, especially for contributors and the community. >> >>> >> >>> Thoughts ? >> >>> >> >>> Regards >> >>> JB >> >
