From general-return-3621-apmail-hadoop-general-archive=hadoop.apache.org@hadoop.apache.org Tue Jun 7 01:18:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hadoop-general-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-general-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C73A4310 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 01:18:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 35934 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jun 2011 01:18:08 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-general-archive@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 35880 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jun 2011 01:18:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@hadoop.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 35872 invoked by uid 99); 7 Jun 2011 01:18:07 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 01:18:07 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO awittena-md.linkedin.biz) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username aw, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 01:18:07 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Subject: Re: LimitedPrivate and HBase From: Allen Wittenauer In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 18:18:06 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <361B71C9-1216-4EBF-98DA-732AEB0C21E8@apache.org> References: <580675.9102.qm@web65506.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4AFD3D6A-9556-4343-91B0-6CA794A0192F@apache.org> <742D84CF-B599-463A-A6E0-2B5732FD27B6@apache.org> To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) On Jun 6, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> Let's face it: this happened because it was HBase. If it was = almost >> anyone else, it would have sat there.... and *that's* the point where = I'm >> mainly concerned. >=20 >=20 > If you want to feel better, take a look at HDFS-941, HDFS-347, and = HDFS-918 > - these are patches that HBase has been asking for for nearly 2 years = in > some cases and haven't gone in. Satisfied? These cases don't appear to be about re-classification of an API = from private to semi-public. So no, I'm not. None of these appear to = answer the base set of question: - What is the real criteria for changing an API from private to = limited? - How "closely related" does a project need to be to get this = privilege? (Yes, I've read the classification docs. That's too vague.) I can tell you feel I'm picking on HBase, especially in light of = my flat out rejection of the "we want to mmap() blocks" case. But if = this reclassification had been with anything else outside of the Hadoop = project, I would have asked the same thing. It raises important = questions that we as a project need to answer.=