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 Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:07:08 GMT
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 29, 2012 4:15 AM, "Alex Karasulu" <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 1:13:30 AM Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
> > > > Hi Daniel...
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > > We had a very similar discussion about the back word compatibility
> > > > > classes/package names when Subversion graduated and we deemed it
OK
> for
> > > > > them.
> > > > > In fact, I believe they still of org.tigris packages in their
> codebase
> > > > > long
> > > > > after graduation.   See:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/subversion/bindings/javah
> > > > > l/src/org/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see why we would or should hold Sqoop to a different or
> higher
> > > > > standard at this point.   I agree with Jukka that if we, as a
> > > foundation,
> > > > > would like to re-address this, fine, take it to trademarks@ and
> start
> > > a
> > > > > discussion.   However, from an INCUBATOR standpoint, the precedent
> and
> > > > > expectations have  been set.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's my $0.02 cents worth.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks a lot for this, but would you elaborate more on why this has
> been
> > > > accepted ? My believe is that there is some clarification that should
> be
> > > > added to documentation so it is more clear for all people in the
> future,
> > > > your input on this example would help indeed.
> > >
> > > You could likely read the mail archives if you want all the details.
> > > general@incubator in Nov 2009 had a thread,  dev@subversion in Jan
> 2010
> > > had a
> > > thread, and I think the graduation vote in Feb 2010 had more
> discussions.
> > >
> > > Basically, the Subversion had binary compatibility "rules" and there
> was no
> > > real "legal" requirement to force a huge disruption in the community by
> > > changing the package names.   The project had a plan to deprecate
> > > them/create
> > > wrappers/whatever so when it was appropriate to break compatibility
> they
> > > would.
> > >
> > >
> > Did they remove those packages or did they remain?
>
> They remain.
>
> Keeping them is the right thing for our community and product. That is our
> determination, and is our Right.
>
>
Sorry but I don't think that's right.


> Sqoop has determined backwards compatibility is important to their
> community and wants to keep this (deprecated) interface for a while. So
> where is the problem here, people?
>
>
It's fine but those com.cloudera packages don't need to be hosted here.
They can be hosted elsewhere and the backwards compatibility issue can
still be handled.


> Really. What is the problem with the extra interfaces?
>
>
The package namespace is not ours. It's that simple G.


> There is no legal (trademark or copyright) problem that I'm aware of. There
> is no technical problem that I'm aware of.


OK do we have the right to create any kind of package or class under
com.cloudera (or any other companies packages)?

-- 
Best Regards,
-- Alex

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