hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Shvachko <...@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Combine MapReduce/HDFS Committers
Date Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:50:03 GMT

My thinking is that while MR and HDFS are the same product,
we can have joint committership.
If split happens there is no reason to have common committers,
like nobody is raising a question to merge e.g. tomcat and
subversion committers.
I think nobody does, but I don't know for sure of course.


On 8/17/2010 3:15 AM, Chris Douglas wrote:
> Per the discussion thread: http://s.apache.org/XkY
> Should HDFS and MapReduce committers lists be combined and all
> subsequent committers on either of these two projects be granted karma
> in the other?
> If the vote passes, current and future committers to MapReduce and
> HDFS will gain commit rights in both projects. Commit rights to Common
> are unaffected.
> Without bylaws, a 2/3 majority for a committer import seems like a
> reasonable bar, given that adding an individual committer requires
> consensus.
> ----
> Owen has started a separate voting thread, proposing to define the
> Common committer list as the union of HDFS and MapReduce committers
> (vote A), so I tried to write this (vote B) so it would not conflict.
> As I'm reading it:
> A passes, B passes: One can become a committer on HDFS or MapReduce.
> Commit to either implies commit on HDFS, MR, and Common.
> A passes, B fails: One can become a committer on HDFS or MapReduce.
> Commit to either implies commit on Common, only.
> A fails, B passes: One can become a committer on HDFS, MapReduce, or
> Common. Commit to to HDFS/MR implies converse, but individual
> appointments to Common continue.
> A fails, B fails: Committers continue to be appointed individually to
> HDFS, MapReduce, and Common.
> In no scheme would commit rights to Common imply commit rights to
> either HDFS or MapReduce, I guess. -C

View raw message