Who owns "org.tensorflow" on Maven Central?

[Xunkai Zhang]

Hi experts,

I'm Xunkai from TF team in Google (https://github.com/xunkai55). We're working on a project "TFLite Support" (https://github.com/tensorflow/tflite-support) and want to distribute our artifacts (JARs) to Maven Central as well.

May I know who is currently owning the permission to deploy artifacts there? (Seems that org.tensorflow has been silent for a year: https://search.maven.org/search?q=g:org.tensorflow).

I'd like to ask for help us uploading artifacts, or help grant me the permission: https://issues.sonatype.org/browse/OSSRH-59600

Thanks!

Best,

Xunkai

[Karl Lessard]

Hi Xunkai,

We are constantly deploying new artifacts under ‘org.tensorflow' but they are still only available as snapshots, on OSS Sonatype as well: https://oss.sonatype.org/service/local/repositories/snapshots/content/org/tensorflow/

New artifacts have a distinct name from the ones deployed by previous 1.x TF releases, which are the one you see on Maven Central (Google has stop deploying these artifacts since they started the 2.x TensorFlow series). 

If you intend to deploy under the same Maven group as TensorFlow for Java, it would be important to make sure that the artifact names can be easily distinguished by the users. I see that you intend to use the 'tensorflow-lite-*' prefix, is that for all your artifacts? To avoid any conflict in the future, I think it could also make sense using a different group names, considering each SIG as a different “organization”. For instance, maybe ‘org.tensorflow.lite'?

For the access, they were granted to us by our Google contact at that time (James Ring). Now, Ananth (which I cc’d) is our new contact and should be able to assist you with this.

Let me know what you think about my proposal, thanks!

Karl

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIG JVM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jvm+uns...@tensorflow.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/d/msgid/jvm/48042514-0bac-4c15-bba4-f76736575c5cn%40tensorflow.org.

[Samuel Audet]

Karl,

The org should be "org.tensorflow" because that's what it is! I've experienced trying to put projects name in there in the past, and it doesn't work well. It's clearer to use only the org name as groupId, and to have a consistent naming convention for the artifacts based on the project names (which you don't agree with, I know, but as more issues like this pop up, you'll come to agree :) Think about the groupId as the the GitHub org, and the artifactId as something like repo/subdirectory.

In any case, it doesn't really matter what the convention is, as long as there is one!

Samuel

[Frank Liu]

I agree with Samuel, the groupId should be "org.tensorflow".

All the artifacts under "org.tensorflow" should follow a single naming convention to avoid confusion.

I thought "SIG JVM" has a roadmap to support TF-lite, is that possible we consolidate two efforts?

Thanks,

Frank

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIG JVM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jvm+uns...@tensorflow.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/d/msgid/jvm/CAHQD%2BUzw4irnquEXgkM0Yb4d3NVO2RnL18OABvQVYNeOO2fO7Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Karl Lessard]

All right, as long as there is a clear prefix for TF Lite artifacts like ‘tensorflow-lite-*’, I’m also good with it. But it’s up to the TF Lite folks to decide.

Frank, supporting TF Lite was never in the roadmap of SIG JVM and unfortunately, I think it would be a big challenge to consolidate the efforts since both projects evolved independently for a while. It would be interesting though to have a discussion with the TF Lite team to brainstorm on it since there is clearly something in common with both projects: the JVM (and that will became even more obvious when we will start to wrap up our API for Kotlin). Also, it is actually a bit disappointing that we can’t actually serve TF Lite models using TF Java

Xunkai, any thought about it? (sorry if your simple original question has triggered all these discussions :) )

Karl

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/d/msgid/jvm/CAERBdmwUxhnxcu_urAKdw%3Duy5c4FsMfCn9tt6UWGAhoX74YPLA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Xunkai Zhang]

Thanks Karl for looping people in! The discussions are really appreciated. Yes we should discuss to see if there's any potential collaboration or at least roadmap alignment - it's always important to learn from everyone and keep us on the same page.

Well for my original question, I think it's good enough for us to distribute artifacts under "org.tensorflow" with "tensorflow-lite-*" prefix, and that's exactly what we do on Bintray (https://bintray.com/beta/#/google/tensorflow/).

I'll ping Ananth for applying that permission. Thanks a lot for the discussions from everyone!

Best,

Xunkai

[Karl Lessard]

Hi Xunkai,

Now thinking of it, I'm not even sure that Ananth has the right to deploy in this repository since I don't recall him building any of the TF 1.x artifacts, I think the last ones were pushed by his predecessor (James). 

While I still think that he would be the right person to manage this namespace, I will endorse right away your request in OSS so you are not blocked if Ananth does not have the required permissions to do it (Ananth, please let me know if that is the case so we can make sure to grant them to you as well for future requests like this).

Cheers,

Karl

[Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan]

Hi Karl:

You're correct: I do not recall being added to ownership of the project in Maven Central.

I have sent an email to a few folks at Google; will update here if I find out anything further.

ananth.