strictly -1 for forcing a name change on graduation.
That would just cause additional overhead without any benefit.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 1:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] - Packages renaming and backward compatibility (was: Re: [VOTE]
Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator)
>
> Has nothing to do with incubation. You're talking about Foundation-wide
> policy. You cannot impose different naming rules on podlings, than what is
> imposed on TLPs. Please see my response in the original thread. You need a
> Board resolution and rationale.
>
> -g
> On Feb 29, 2012 5:03 AM, "Mohammad Nour El-Din"
> <nour.mohammad@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I don't see that this getting to any clear end yet. So I suggest that
> we
>> take this from a Sqoop instance to be a discussion on rules them selves.
>>
>> I would like to start a [VOTE] about whether it is a *must* for podlings to
>> rename all packages before being a TLP or not over keeping the old package
>> names for backward compatibility. What ever the consensus going to be built
>> we definitely need to update the Incubator documents to clear this kind of
>> issue. But before starting the vote I would like to consider others'
>> opinions.
>>
>> Thoughts ?
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org>
> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din
>> > > <nour.mohammad@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > On the other hand, I totally respect that Cloudera's
> interest to
>> > support
>> > > > their customers and provide backword compatibility, but this
> is *not*
>> > the
>> > > > point at all, the point is this *should* not, and even allow
> me to
>> say
>> > > this
>> > > > is *must* not be the problem of Apache, and yes I agree with
> the
>> > opinion
>> > > > that this is a matter to be decided by Sqoop team but not to
> make
>> > > Apache's
>> > > > problem. So also let not get more into this!!!
>> > >
>> > > Or course this is Apache's problem. You can't have your
> cake and eat
>> > > it too. If you accept code for a project you accept the community
> as
>> > > well. Say Apache accepts a project like Open Office, should we
> ignore
>> > > the existing community and not concern ourselves with backward
>> > > compatibility for that project as well, because the original code
>> > > wasn't birthed at Apache?
>> > >
>> >
>> > That's a very slippery slope. Maybe some projects get way too much
> leeway
>> > because of the big flashing lights. Regardless of how big the press
>> > headlines are all projects should be held to the same standard.
>> >
>> > No project should be allowed to graduate without solving all issues
>> > pertaining to marks. It's a failure of the incubator in the past
> for
>> > allowing other projects to do so. I'm shocked it was allowed.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best Regards,
>> > -- Alex
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks
>> - Mohammad Nour
>> ----
>> "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep
> moving"
>> - Albert Einstein
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
|