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: [DISCUSS] - Packages renaming and backward compatibility (was: Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator)
Date Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:55:44 GMT
Hi...

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> > I'm glad you phrased it like this. It totally takes us out of the scope
> of
> > the perceived problem. As you say you have to apply the same rules until
> > policies change, if they change. You're amazingly cogent dude! It's a
> > strong argument that I can't disagree with even though I am convinced the
> > perceived problem is quite serious.
> >
> > I'll withdraw my veto on the other VOTE thread but I really want to
> > evaluate this in this discussion thread.
> >
> >
> OK to get back on track with this discussion I've taken a snippet from the
> original thread and pasted it here:
>
>
> >> 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)?
> >
>
> I'd like to approach it by answering this question. Because if we look at
> it like this then we'll start seeing the issues this could cause.
>

That is a good question!


>
> --
> 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