accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Corey Nolet <cjno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Contribute Examples/Exercises
Date Fri, 14 Nov 2014 18:19:30 GMT
Mike & David,

Are you +1 for contributing the examples or +1 for moving the examples out
into separate repos?

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:52 PM, David Medinets <david.medinets@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1
> On Nov 14, 2014 11:18 AM, "Keith Turner" <keith@deenlo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Corey Nolet <cjnolet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Josh,
> > >
> > > > My worry with a contrib module is that, historically, code which goes
> > > moves to a contrib is just one step away from the grave.
> > >
> > > You do have a good point. My hope was that this could be the beginning
> of
> > > our changing history so that we could begin to encourage the community
> to
> > > contribute their own source directly and give them an outlet for doing
> > so.
> > > I understand that's also the intent of hosting open source repos under
> > ASF
> > > to begin with- so I'm partial to either outcome.
> > >
> > > > I think there's precedence for keeping them in core (as Christopher
> had
> > > mentioned, next to examples/simple) which would benefit people
> externally
> > > (more "how do I do X" examples) and internally (keep devs honest about
> > how
> > > our APIs are implemented).
> > >
> > > I would think that would just require keeping the repos up to date as
> > > versions change so they wouldn't get out of date and possibly releasing
> > > them w/ our other releases.
> > >
> > >
> > > Wherever they end up living, thank you Adam for the contributions!
> > >
> >
> > I'll 2nd that.
> >
> > For the following reasons, I think it might be nice to move existing
> > examples out of core into their own git repo(s).
> >
> >  * Examples would be based on released version of Accumulo
> >  * Examples could easily be built w/o building all of Accumulo
> >  * As Sean said, this would keep us honest
> >  * The examples poms would serve as examples more than they do when part
> of
> > Accumulo build
> >  * Less likely to use non public APIs in examples
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > My worry with a contrib module is that, historically, code which goes
> > > > moves to a contrib is just one step away from the grave. I think
> > there's
> > > > precedence for keeping them in core (as Christopher had mentioned,
> next
> > > to
> > > > examples/simple) which would benefit people externally (more "how do
> I
> > do
> > > > X" examples) and internally (keep devs honest about how our APIs are
> > > > implemented).
> > > >
> > > > Bringing the examples into the core also encourages us to grow the
> > > > community which has been stagnant with respect to new committers for
> > > about
> > > > 9 months now.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Corey Nolet wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> +1 for adding the examples to contrib.
> > > >>
> > > >> I was, myself, reading over this email wondering how a set of 11
> > > separate
> > > >> examples on the use of Accumulo would fit into the core codebase-
> > > >> especially as more are contributed over tinme. I like the idea of
> > giving
> > > >> community members an outlet for contributing examples that they've
> > built
> > > >> so
> > > >> that we can continue to foster that without having to fit them in
> the
> > > core
> > > >> codebase. It just seems more maintainable.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>  I'll take that as you disagree with my consideration of
> > "substantial".
> > > >>> Thanks.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Mike Drob wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  The proposed contribution is a collection of 11 examples. It's
> > clearly
> > > >>>> non-trivial, which is probably enough to be considered
> "substantial"
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com
> >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>  Sean Busbey wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>   On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Josh Elser<
> > josh.elser@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>    Personally, I didn't really think that this contribution
was
> in
> > > the
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>  spirit
> > > >>>>>>> of what the new codebase adoption guidelines were
meant to
> cover.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Some extra examples which leverage what Accumulo
already does
> > seems
> > > >>>>>>> more
> > > >>>>>>> like improvements for new Accumulo users than
anything else.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>    It's content developed out side of the project
list. That's
> > all
> > > it
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>  takes to
> > > >>>>>> require the trip through the Incubator checks as far
as the ASF
> > > >>>>>> guidelines
> > > >>>>>> are concerned.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>    From http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> """
> > > >>>>>   From time to time, an external codebase is brought into
the ASF
> > > that
> > > >>>>> is
> > > >>>>> not a separate incubating project but still represents
a
> > substantial
> > > >>>>> contribution that was not developed within the ASF's source
> control
> > > >>>>> system
> > > >>>>> and on our public mailing lists.
> > > >>>>> """
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Not to look a gift-horse in the mouth (it is great work),
but I
> > don't
> > > >>>>> see
> > > >>>>> these examples as "substantial". I haven't found guidelines
yet
> > that
> > > >>>>> better
> > > >>>>> clarify the definition of "substantial".
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message