Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-drill-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-drill-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0BA571853C for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:10:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 43103 invoked by uid 500); 17 Dec 2015 19:10:14 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-drill-dev-archive@drill.apache.org Received: (qmail 43055 invoked by uid 500); 17 Dec 2015 19:10:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@drill.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@drill.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@drill.apache.org Received: (qmail 43036 invoked by uid 99); 17 Dec 2015 19:10:14 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:10:14 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 00DE01A0A61 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:10:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 5.001 X-Spam-Level: ***** X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.001 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=3, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY=1, UC_GIBBERISH_OBFU=1, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-eu-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E_ykhrKhBd8r for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:09:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (relay3-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.195]) by mx1-eu-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-eu-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 0954B203BB for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:09:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mfilter19-d.gandi.net (mfilter19-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.147]) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E72D2A80C6; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:09:55 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter19-d.gandi.net Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.195]) by mfilter19-d.gandi.net (mfilter19-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id thBZrF-pkKMv; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:09:53 +0100 (CET) X-Originating-IP: 208.66.24.182 Received: from [192.168.10.151] (unknown [208.66.24.182]) (Authenticated sender: julien@ledem.net) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A4FEAA80CE; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:09:46 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C733AC68-977B-4E30-ADC9-23D6F471D473" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) Subject: Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative From: Julien Le Dem In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:09:44 -0800 Cc: Jason Altekruse , Julien Le Dem , dev , Wes McKinney , "P. Taylor Goetz" , David Alves , Jake Luciani , "todd@apache.org" , Hanifi Gunes , Ippokratis Pandis , Reynold Xin , michael stack , Julian Hyde , James Taylor , smp@apache.org, Parth Chandra , Abdel Hakim Deneche , Zain Asgar , Alex Levenson Message-Id: <5AF454E8-F0CD-49F5-A4FA-DE7A7E409658@ledem.net> References: <482211ED-718C-44AE-8940-7D06EAC91A61@hydromatic.net> <53E142C1-36AA-4C09-B4E9-ED3204717D09@apache.org> To: Ted Dunning X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) --Apple-Mail=_C733AC68-977B-4E30-ADC9-23D6F471D473 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I guess what I meant is: separate repos =3D> separate releases. One repo can still have separate releases as was mentioned. I=E2=80=99m not too fond of the separate repos in parquet anymore. The only reason I would split to a separate repo now is if we have large = files for regression testing and that=E2=80=99s because of how git = works. Separate directories java and cpp seems a given since they will build = independently. I=E2=80=99d vote for just one repo with /format /java /cpp. both /java and /cpp depend on /format releasing the format independently is useful because the semantics are = different than for an API. A breaking change in the format may not be an API change and vice-versa. Julien > On Dec 16, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Ted Dunning = wrote: >=20 >=20 > One repo should be a given. >=20 > Separate directories should be the question. >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Jason Altekruse = > wrote: > I think that is a worthwhile discussion, parallel vs independent = releases, but I don't understand why it relates to one repo or not. = Couldn't the release tag names just include the language (cpp, java = python)? What other parts of version control are related to releasing? >=20 > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Julien Le Dem > wrote: > for the git repos it boils down to wether we want to release arrow-cpp = and arrow-java independently or together with the same version numbers. > =20 >=20 >=20 > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Jacques Nadeau > wrote: > Thanks Wes, that's great! > On Dec 14, 2015 9:44 AM, "Wes McKinney" > wrote: >=20 > > hi folks, > > > > In the interim I created a new public GitHub organization to host = code > > for this effort so we can organize ourselves in advance of more > > progress in the ASF: > > > > https://github.com/arrow-data > > > > I have a partial C++ implementation of the Arrow spec that I can = move > > there, along with a to-be-Markdown-ified version of a specification > > subject to more iteration. The more pressing short term matter will = be > > making some progress on the metadata / data headers / IPC protocol > > (e.g. using Flatbuffers or the like). > > > > Thoughts on git repo structure? > > > > 1) Avro-style =E2=80=94 "one repo to rule them all" > > 2) Parquet-style =E2=80=94 arrow-format, arrow-cpp, arrow-java, etc. > > > > (I'm personally more in the latter camp, though integration tests = may > > be more tedious that way) > > > > Thanks > > > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jacques Nadeau > wrote: > > > I've opened a name search for our top vote getter. > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92 = > > > > > > > > > I also just realized that my previously email dropped other = recipients. > > > Here it is below. > > > > > > ---- > > > I think we can call the voting closed. Top vote getters: > > > > > > Apache Arrow (17) > > > Apache Herringbone (9) > > > Apache Joist (8) > > > Apache Colbuf (8) > > > > > > I'll up a PODLINGNAMESEARCH-* shortly for Arrow. > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jacques Nadeau > > > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Marcel Kornacker = > > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Just added my vote. > > >> > > >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Wes McKinney > wrote: > > >> > Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers? > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning = > > > >> > wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place. > > >> >> > > >> >> Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As = such, > > >> >> their > > >> >> opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice. There are = issues > > of > > >> >> privilege, conflict of interest and so on. > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson > > >> >> > > > >> >> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >> >>> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is = that > > >> >>> something we need? Or is that something apache helps out with = in the > > >> >>> next > > >> >>> step? > > >> >>> > > >> >>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde = > > > wrote: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick = search for > > >> >>>> the > > >> >>>> top 4 remaining, (=E2=80=9Carrow=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Choneycomb=E2= =80=9D, =E2=80=9Cherringbone=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cjoist"), at > > >> >>>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are = no > > >> >>>> trademarks > > >> >>>> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately = active > > >> >>>> project > > >> >>>> called =E2=80=9Cjoist=E2=80=9D [1]. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> I will point out that =E2=80=9CApache Arrow=E2=80=9D has = native-american > > connotations > > >> >>>> that we may or may not want to live with (just ask the = Washington > > >> >>>> Redskins > > >> >>>> how they feel about their name). > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on > > >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 = , and > > fill > > >> >>>> out > > >> >>>> column C in the spreadsheet. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Julian > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist = > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau = > > > >> >>>> wrote: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> +1 > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> -- > > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau > > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney = > > > >> >>>> wrote: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow > > (Tuesday)? > > >> >>>> I > > >> >>>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde < > > julian@hydromatic.net > > > >> >>>> wrote: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process = but the > > >> >>>> first > > >> >>>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts - > > >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 = is an > > >> >>>> example. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > = http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/ = . > > >> >>>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I = think > > >> >>>> that is > > >> >>>> as close to a =E2=80=9Cdirect hit=E2=80=9D as it gets. I = don=E2=80=99t think we need a > > lawyer > > >> >>>> to > > >> >>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts = for > > the > > >> >>>> other > > >> >>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Julian > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker = > > > > > >> >>>> wrote: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau < > > jacques@dremio.com > > > >> >>>> wrote: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Ok guys, > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of = viaability. I > > >> >>>> did a > > >> >>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would = have an > > >> >>>> issue > > >> >>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's = do a > > >> >>>> second > > >> >>>> phase vote. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise? > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into = this? > > >> >>>> Last > > >> >>>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did = a good > > >> >>>> job > > >> >>>> of > > >> >>>> weeding out the potential trademark violations. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well? > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference) > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling = name > > >> >>>> search > > >> >>>> starting with the top one. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Link again: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > = https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eK= JlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=3D304381532&vpid=3DA1 = > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> thanks > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> -- > > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau > > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau < > > jacques@dremio.com > > > >> >>>> wrote: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got = 11 > > since > > >> >>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place): > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> = VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor > > >> >>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to = see > > whether > > >> >>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a = second > > tab: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > = https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eK= JlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=3D304381532 = > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential = conflicts? > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> -- > > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau > > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau < > > jacques@dremio.com > > > >> >>>> wrote: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers = 1 to > > 10. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> 10 is most preferred > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> -- > > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau > > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning < > > ted.dunning@gmail.com > > > >> >>>> wrote: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Single vote for most preferred? > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Single transferable vote? > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau < > > jacques@dremio.com > > > >> >>>> wrote: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll = take > > >> >>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for > > >> >>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on > > >> >>>> Wednesday. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> thanks! > > >> >>>> Jacques > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> -- > > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau > > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau < > > jacques@apache.org > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> wrote: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Hey Guys, > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the = Vector > > >> >>>> proposal > > >> >>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point = of > > >> >>>> contention > > >> >>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a = name > > >> >>>> and get > > >> >>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a = process for > > >> >>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal = and > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> We do the naming in the following steps > > >> >>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered > > >> >>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top = 10 > > >> >>>> options > > >> >>>> 1..10 > > >> >>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis = of > > >> >>>> whether we > > >> >>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that = have > > >> >>>> this until > > >> >>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names > > >> >>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank = their > > >> >>>> top 3 > > >> >>>> names > > >> >>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that = doesn't > > >> >>>> work, > > >> >>>> try the second and third options. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone = but > > then > > >> >>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We = could > > >> >>>> just do > > >> >>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill = dev is > > >> >>>> better > > >> >>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect = place for > > >> >>>> that but > > >> >>>> I'm not sure a better place exists. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what = others > > >> >>>> think. Just > > >> >>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for = step 1. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Thanks, > > >> >>>> Jacques > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd = Lipcon, Ted > > >> >>>> Dunning, > > >> >>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem, = Jacques > > >> >>>> Nadeau, > > >> >>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, = Marcel > > >> >>>> Kornacker, > > >> >>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason = Altekruse, David > > >> >>>> Alves, > > >> >>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold = Xin. > > >> >>>> [2] > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > = https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eK= JlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=3D0 = > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> -- > > >> >>> Alex Levenson > > >> >>> @THISWILLWORK > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Julien >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_C733AC68-977B-4E30-ADC9-23D6F471D473--