hawq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vineet Goel <vvin...@apache.org>
Subject Re: libhdfs3 development is still going on outside of ASF
Date Thu, 15 Sep 2016 05:51:12 GMT
Good points on the discussion from everyone.

Given the history of libhdfs3 and it's inception for the purpose of use
with HAWQ, and Apache HAWQ community's commitment to Apache governance
model and collaboration, I too support the idea of maintaining this in
Apache HAWQ project.

Zhanwei - your contributions to libhdfs3 codebase are significant. Would
you be willing if this codebase was supported under a well-known community
project (Apache HAWQ) similar to other Hadoop projects, with likely more
visibility and community collaboration? What other community projects are
you aware of that are using libhdfs3 other than HAWQ and what's the
frequency of such commits that are not relevant to HAWQ? Could new commits
be managed in a way that are beneficial or do-no-harm to HAWQ?

Regards,
Vineet



On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:54 PM Kyle Dunn <kdunn@pivotal.io> wrote:

> Chiming in here only as a casual but concerned observer.
>
> Open source is about community first. If the logistics around "where"
> libhdfs3 lives rather than the much more important issue of "how" it lives
> are the focus here, I think we've missed the real issue.
>
> For what it's worth, I concur with others, let's move it to HAWQ
> exclusively and move on to addressing the community, starting with the
> decision being made and how/where future contributions can be made.
>
> My brief scan of libhdfs3 shows numerous open pull requests (with
> apparently useful contributions) and several loose ends "issues". We need
> to communicate effectively to these contributors whether those PRs and
> issues are valuable and relevant. This type of engagement is what OSS
> projects live and die by. We need to be better, starting with libhdfs3,
> into HAWQ, and beyond.
>
> "Open source isn't someone else's job" - it's everyone's job. I'm
> challenging everyone with commit responsibly on repos to value community
> input (both code and issues) as highly as your own backlog. Pay it forward
> and maybe the community will start shrinking your backlog unexpectedly.
>
>
> -Kyle
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016, 21:33 Lei Chang <chang.lei.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > There was a short discussion before when we moved libhfds3 to HAWQ repo.
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-hawq-dev/201602.mbox/%3cCAE44UQe1xgcVOC76T_mgVbgGbR=Lx=XUBPVw18ZK4iZ3euCH+g@mail.gmail.com%3e
> > I think it makes sense to keep libhdfs3 only in HAWQ repo to simplify
> > Apache build and releases in current phase. This is what we have done in
> > the past. But looks not everyone is on the same page.
> > CheersLei
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:12 AM +0800, "Greg Chase" <greg@gregchase.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Its fine if libhdfs3 is a third party license, and is treated that way.
> >
> > However, why does Apache HAWQ want to be dependent on some strange 3rd
> > party library with no transparency?
> >
> > We are having enough difficulties just getting our first release out.
> >
> > Is there a compelling reason why we need to keep up with the
> independently
> > developed libhdfs3 project?  Are they willing to make necessary changes
> so
> > that they are compatible with ASF's strict-for-a-good-reason policies?
> >
> > Can we fork hdfs3 for Apache HAWQ's purposes in Apache?
> >
> > If any libhdfs3 committers are also part of Apache HAWQ, perhaps you can
> > shed some light on the viability of this as an independent project since
> I
> > only see 4 contributors.
> >
> > -Greg
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Hong Wu  wrote:
> >
> > > In my opinion, I think it is reasonable to transfer the third-party
> repo
> > of
> > > libhdfs3 totally into HAWQ, not only for the convenience of HAWQ build,
> > but
> > > also for the consideration of ASF project. So for HAWQ project, I am
> with
> > > Roman.
> > >
> > > But my concern is the current users of libhdfs3 and all the pull
> > requests,
> > > wiki docs and issues. Another uncertain aspect from my perspective is
> > that
> > > although HAWQ could not run without libhdfs3, libhdfs3 could be used in
> > > other open source projects, that might be the true meaning of making
> > > libhdfs3 open source at the beginning.
> > >
> > > In summary, if it is really against the spirit of a ASF project for
> > HAWQ, a
> > > suggested way might be marking original libhdfs3 repo as a legacy repo
> in
> > > stead of remove it.
> > >
> > > Best
> > > Hong
> > >
> > > 2016-09-15 10:04 GMT+08:00 Zhanwei Wang :
> > >
> > > > Currently libhdfs3’s official code is not the same as in HAWQ. Some
> new
> > > > code does not copy into HAWQ.  I do not think code change of libhdfs3
> > > > should follow HAWQ’s commit process because  many change are not
> > related
> > > to
> > > > HAWQ.
> > > >
> > > > From HAWQ side, I suggest to keep the stable version of its
> third-party
> > > > libraries and copy new libhdfs3’s code only when it is necessary.
> > > >
> > > > libhdfs3 was open source years before HAWQ incubating with a
> separated
> > > > permission of its authority. So in my opinion it is a third party and
> > it
> > > > actually was a third party before HAWQ incubating. And HAWQ is not
> the
> > > only
> > > > user.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards
> > > >
> > > > Zhanwei Wang
> > > > wangzw@apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 在 2016年9月15日,上午9:35,Roman Shaposhnik  写道:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Zhanwei Wang
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> Hi Roman
> > > > >>
> > > > >> libhdfs3 works as third-party library of HAWQ, Just for the
> > > convenience
> > > > of HAWQ release
> > > > >> process we copy its code into HAWQ.  The reason is that HAWQ
used
> to
> > > > dependent on
> > > > >> specific version of libhdfs3 and libhdfs3 only distribute as
> source
> > > > code and the build process is complicated.
> > > > >
> > > > > I actually don't buy this argument. libhdfs3 is not an optional
> > > > > dependency for HAWQ
> > > > > like ORCA is (for example). Without libhdfs3 there's pretty tough
> to
> > > > > imagine HAWQ.
> > > > > As such the code base needs to be governed as part of the ASF
> > project,
> > > > > not a random
> > > > > GitHub dependency.
> > > > >
> > > > > IOW, let me ask you this: were all the changes that went into
> > libhdfs3
> > > > > that is part of
> > > > > HAWQ discussed and reviewed via the ASF development process or did
> > you
> > > > just
> > > > > import them from time to time as this comment suggests:
> > > > >    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-1046?
> > > > focusedCommentId=15489669&page=com.atlassian.jira.
> > > > plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15489669
> > > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > >> I do not think we have any reason to shutdown a third party’s
> > official
> > > > repository.
> > > > >
> > > > > You say 3d party as though its not just you guys maintaining it on
> > the
> > > > side.
> > > > >
> > > > >> We also copy google test source code into HAWQ, just as what
we
> did
> > > for
> > > > libhdfs3.
> > > > >
> > > > > But this is very different. You don't do any development (certainly
> > > > > you don't do any
> > > > > non-trivial development) of that code.
> > > > >
> > > > >> libhdfs3 open source under Apache license version 2 just the
same
> as
> > > > HAWQ. So I believe there is no license issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're correct. There's no licensing issue but there's a pretty
> > > > significant
> > > > > governance issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Roman.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> *Kyle Dunn | Data Engineering | Pivotal*
> Direct: 303.905.3171 <3039053171> | Email: kdunn@pivotal.io
>

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