incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] - Packages renaming and backward compatibility (was: Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator)
Date Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:38:27 GMT
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


Mime
View raw message