Since there's an opinion to create an examples repo instead of keeping
them in the base project, I'm -0 as long we CI set up so that they don't
go silently into the night as I previously state as a concern.
Some general questions for actually doing this: do we schedule the move
of the classes out of the main project for 1.7.0? Will this other repo
follow the same development practices as the project (e.g. branch
names). How will we release these examples?
Can someone step up to make sure all of the above are
completed/addressed and file the necessary INFRA JIRA issues?
David Medinets wrote:
+1
On Nov 14, 2014 11:18 AM, "Keith Turner"<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Corey Nolet<[email protected]> wrote:
Josh,
My worry with a contrib module is that, historically, code which goes
moves to a contrib is just one step away from the grave.
You do have a good point. My hope was that this could be the beginning of
our changing history so that we could begin to encourage the community to
contribute their own source directly and give them an outlet for doing
so.
I understand that's also the intent of hosting open source repos under
ASF
to begin with- so I'm partial to either outcome.
I think there's precedence for keeping them in core (as Christopher had
mentioned, next to examples/simple) which would benefit people externally
(more "how do I do X" examples) and internally (keep devs honest about
how
our APIs are implemented).
I would think that would just require keeping the repos up to date as
versions change so they wouldn't get out of date and possibly releasing
them w/ our other releases.
Wherever they end up living, thank you Adam for the contributions!
I'll 2nd that.
For the following reasons, I think it might be nice to move existing
examples out of core into their own git repo(s).
* Examples would be based on released version of Accumulo
* Examples could easily be built w/o building all of Accumulo
* As Sean said, this would keep us honest
* The examples poms would serve as examples more than they do when part of
Accumulo build
* Less likely to use non public APIs in examples
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Josh Elser<[email protected]>
wrote:
My worry with a contrib module is that, historically, code which goes
moves to a contrib is just one step away from the grave. I think
there's
precedence for keeping them in core (as Christopher had mentioned, next
to
examples/simple) which would benefit people externally (more "how do I
do
X" examples) and internally (keep devs honest about how our APIs are
implemented).
Bringing the examples into the core also encourages us to grow the
community which has been stagnant with respect to new committers for
about
9 months now.
Corey Nolet wrote:
+1 for adding the examples to contrib.
I was, myself, reading over this email wondering how a set of 11
separate
examples on the use of Accumulo would fit into the core codebase-
especially as more are contributed over tinme. I like the idea of
giving
community members an outlet for contributing examples that they've
built
so
that we can continue to foster that without having to fit them in the
core
codebase. It just seems more maintainable.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Josh Elser<[email protected]>
wrote:
I'll take that as you disagree with my consideration of
"substantial".
Thanks.
Mike Drob wrote:
The proposed contribution is a collection of 11 examples. It's
clearly
non-trivial, which is probably enough to be considered "substantial"
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Josh Elser<[email protected]>
wrote:
Sean Busbey wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Josh Elser<
[email protected]>
wrote:
Personally, I didn't really think that this contribution was in
the
spirit
of what the new codebase adoption guidelines were meant to cover.
Some extra examples which leverage what Accumulo already does
seems
more
like improvements for new Accumulo users than anything else.
It's content developed out side of the project list. That's
all
it
takes to
require the trip through the Incubator checks as far as the ASF
guidelines
are concerned.
From http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
"""
From time to time, an external codebase is brought into the ASF
that
is
not a separate incubating project but still represents a
substantial
contribution that was not developed within the ASF's source control
system
and on our public mailing lists.
"""
Not to look a gift-horse in the mouth (it is great work), but I
don't
see
these examples as "substantial". I haven't found guidelines yet
that
better
clarify the definition of "substantial".
