hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Shall we adopt the "Defining Hadoop" page
Date Thu, 16 Jun 2011 04:30:20 GMT
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Craig L Russell
<craig.russell@oracle.com>wrote:

> There's no ambiguity. Either you ship the bits that the Apache PMC has
> voted on as a release, or you change it (one bit) and it is no longer what
> the PMC has voted on. It's a derived work.
>
> The rules for voting in Apache require that if you change a bit in an
> artifact, you can no longer count votes for the previous artifact. Because
> the new work is different. A new vote is required.
>

Sorry, but this is just silly. Are you telling me that the httpd package in
Ubuntu isn't Apache httpd? It has 43 patches applied. Tomcat6 has 17. I'm
sure every other commonly used piece of software bundled with ubuntu has
been patched, too. I don't see them calling their packages "Ubuntu HTTP
server powered by Apache HTTPD". It's just httpd.

The httpd in RHEL 5 is the same way. In fact they even provide some nice
metadata in their patches, for example:
httpd-2.0.48-release.patch:Upstream-Status: vendor-specific change
httpd-2.1.10-apctl.patch:Upstream-Status: Vendor-specific changes for better
initscript integration

To me, this is a good thing: allowing vendors to redistribute the software
with some modifications makes it much more accessible to users and
businesses alike, and that's part of why Hadoop has had so much success. So
long as we require the vendors to upstream those modifications back to the
ASF, we get the benefits of these contributions back in the community and
everyone should be happy.

-Todd
-- 
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

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