incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mohammad Nour El-Din <nour.moham...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator
Date Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:02:54 GMT
Hi all...

   I don't think that anyone here is trying to underestimate or saying
anything bad about Sqoop in general or about Cloudera people in particular.

And I agree on the point that this vote was more about evaluating whether
the Sqoop community succeeded to adapt to the Apache way of doing open
source software or not, and I still believe that they did very good job. So
lets not get into this by any how!!!

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!!!

Even if there is no explicit rules about that, which is something I really
have to look into, again I believe it shouldn't be Apache's problem and if
thats the case the relevant documents should be updated and on behalf on
others, sorry if I am speaking in name of others here, but I thank the
Sqoop team to bring that issue so we know that we need to make things more
clear and precise which is also the role of IPMC as part of Apache.

IMHO lets be pragmatic and cut into the chase and seek answers and
solutions. As I stated before, but I still didn't get any answers, how much
of work this needs to get it done ?

I will assume two available answers:

1- It can be done before the next board meeting and hence there is no
problem at all and the vote still valid.
2- If not, we have two options:
  2.1 We still make the vote valid but Mentors they *must* make sure that
such issue is resolved as a checklist item of the graduation process steps,
which I would prefer
  2.2 Vote is cancelled and required changes are discussed by the PPMC
preparing for the next vote iteration

I would urge all involved to focus on these options or other options if
available, the whole purpose here is to make things better, to make Apache
way better and more clear which is not only the role of IPMC but it is the
role of everyone involved with Apache including Sqoop community itself,
which I am sure they are willing to help as much as possible.

Sorry for the long e-mail :)

Looking forward to your reply!

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org>wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
----
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
- Albert Einstein

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