accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <>
Subject Re: contrib vs. pushed to other projects
Date Mon, 21 Oct 2013 20:27:47 GMT
Had this sitting in a draft... but I think I'm for a case-by-case basis, 
leaning towards upstream contributions when at all possible.

Some more stuff inline.

On 10/21/13 10:28 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> Heya,
> I'm working on the docs for our contrib projects, and I noticed the Hive
> Serde wasn't about. ACCUMULO-143[1] shows patch available, but it didn't
> make it into a repo before the git move.

Should we make a repo for the Hive integration? Seems potentially 
worthwhile as we figure out what to do with it.

> Based on the discussion back around the flume sink, my guess is things like
> this should be in other projects if possible. However, this particular
> contrib is basically the equivalent of hte Pig Storage contrib[2].
> This leaves me with a few questions I'd like to get some consensus on:
> 1) Generally, do we want the contrib project guide to explicitly say that
> interoperability projects should favor pushing Accumulo specific components
> into other projects? (e.g. an Accumulo Sink for Flume)
> 2) Specifically for Hive, do want a contrib project added for this Serde,
> or try to get it into Hive?
> 3) For consistency, would we prefer Accumulo-Pig get pushed into Pig (or
> more likely Piggybank)?

As I bring myself up to speed on Pig, my intent was to leave it on its 
own. Once I feel confident in how it all works and all that, my intent 
was to bring it up to the Pig community to see what they would think 
about upstream inclusion. This would mirror a bit of what exists for 

I'm positive there are pros/cons, I just don't know what they area yet 
:). Any other feedback/knowledge/advice would definitely be welcome. 

> [1]:
> [2]:;a=summary

View raw message