Eric, Personally I'm fine either way.
Still, I fail to see why a generic/categorized tools increase/reduce the risk of dead code and how they make more-difficult/easier the package&deployment. Would you please explain this? Thanks. Alejandro On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Eric Yang <eric...@gmail.com> wrote: > Option #2 proposed by Amareshwari, seems like a better proposal. We don't > want to repeat history for contrib again with hadoop-tools. Having a > generic module like hadoop-tools increases the risk of accumulate dead code. > It would be better to categorize the hdfs or mapreduce specific tools in > their respected subcategories. It is also easier to manage from > package/deployment prospective. > > regards, > Eric > > On Sep 6, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Eli Collins wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Allen Wittenauer <a...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Sep 6, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: > >>> We still need to answer Amareshwari's question (2) she asked some time > back > >>> about the automated code compilation and test execution of the tools > module. > >> > >> > >> > >>>>> My #1 question is if tools is basically contrib reborn. If not, what > >>>> makes > >>>>> it different? > >> > >> > >> I'm still waiting for this answer as well. > >> > >> Until such, I would be pretty much against a tools module. > Changing the name of the dumping ground doesn't make it any less of a > dumping ground. > > > > IMO if the tools module only gets stuff like distcp that's maintained > > then it's not contrib, if it contains all the stuff from the current > > MR contrib then tools is just a re-labeling of contrib. Given that > > this proposal only covers moving distcp to tools it doesn't sound like > > contrib to me. > > > > Thanks, > > Eli > >
