hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hemanth Yamijala <yhema...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Combine MapReduce/HDFS Committers
Date Wed, 18 Aug 2010 04:52:40 GMT
-1. After thinking through, I do feel that there is and will be a
trend where more folks will focus on only one of the two projects. I
certainly know of several Map/Reduce committers who are not active on
HDFS and vice-versa, and therefore couldn't qualify to have commit
rights on both projects.


On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Chris Douglas <cdouglas@apache.org> 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