incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator
Date Tue, 28 Feb 2012 23:18:55 GMT
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Arvind Prabhakar <arvind@apache.org>wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Arvind Prabhakar <arvind@apache.org
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <
> adc@toolazydogs.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>> Opps, I didn't see that Arvind concluded the vote.  I still stand
by
> >> my opinion that there
> >> >>> are some things that are not solely up to the people that are doing
> >> the work.  Complete
> >> >>> migration to the the org.apache.* package space is one of them.
> >> >>
> >> >> No worries. I respect your opinion and if Apache feels that this is
> >> >> important enough to make explicit then certainly Sqoop should make
> the
> >> >> changes. Short of that I don't see why we should hold Sqoop to a
> >> >> higher standard than is expected of other Apache projects. (that's
> >> >> _my_ opinion ;-) )
> >> >
> >> > Right.
> >> >
> >> > Basically the graduation vote by the IPMC is about determining whether
> >> > the PPMC is capable of conducting itself according to the Apache Way
> >> > and Apache policies on it's own. I didn't have time to look deeper
> >> > into Sqoop yet, but all the +1s in this vote suggest that the Sqoop
> >> > PPMC is ready to take on that responsibility. Along with that
> >> > responsibility comes the right to make value judgements on topics like
> >> > this where existing policies aren't clearly spelled out.
> >>
> >> Thanks Jukka. In fact, Sqoop already has a plan in place to completely
> >> remove com.cloudera.* namespace from its contents via the next major
> >> revision of the product. The work for that has already started and
> >> currently exists under the branch sqoop2 [3], tracked by SQOOP-365
> >> [4]. We hope that in a few months time, we will have feature parity in
> >> this branch with the trunk, which is when we will promote it to the
> >> trunk.
> >>
> >> [3] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/sqoop/branches/sqoop2/
> >> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-365
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Personally I think we should let the vote result stand with guidance
> >> > to the new Sqoop PMC to discuss the matter with the branding team at
> >> > trademarks@ to seek Apache-wide consensus. I encourage anyone who
> >> > feels strongly about this (the point being made clearly has some
> >> > merit) make their case to trademarks@ as it's IMHO not really the
> task
> >> > of the Incubator to be forming new policy on this, especially with all
> >> > the recent talk about scaling down the ambitions of the IPMC.
> >>
> >> This sounds like a great solution that addresses the concern and does
> >> not unduly penalize the Sqoop project.
> >>
> >
> > You really should not be seeing this as being penalized. It's not about
> > that.
>
> The penalty I reference is for the Sqoop community which will be
> impacted by incompatible changes you are suggesting.
>
>
I'm sure you can rectify that. It was stated that Scoop has a branch to do
just that in a couple months.


> I appreciate your feedback, and request that you keep the discussion
> relavant to the issue at hand without making references like "Cloudera
> people come out of the woodwork".


Sorry to disappoint but this is something relavant. You think I want to
point this out and get people all riled up? It's just hard to ignore. I'm
speaking my mind and expressing my concerns.


> Please understand that we interact
> with Apache as individual contributors and committers. Such references
> undermine our efforts and are honestly insulting to everyone who has
> spent hours on delivering the product.
>

Your hypersensitivity is not my problem.

Oh the other hand, that's certainly NOT my intention either. This is an
observation, perhaps a suspicion. Nothing meant to jibe.

-- 
Best Regards,
-- Alex

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