On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > [snip] > > > My biggest concern in adopting it as a codebase would be ensuring that it > > isn't another codebase dropped into contrib/ and subsequently ignored. > How > > do you plan to avoid this? Who do you see maintaining and running these > > tests? > > > [snip] > > I'm curious about these also. Looking at the commits, it looks entirely > authored by existing PMC/committers. I assume those authors will continue > to maintain it, accepting pull requests and improving functionality. Can we > get confirmation on that? If that's the case, I think the concerns about it > being ignored are relatively low risk. In theory, it could also be another > surface, from which we can recruit new developers into the community. > > FWIW, I'd be happy to be marked as component lead for the contrib. I believe I can make myself get a special ping when patches are submitted. This tooling is part of how I verify upgrades on our RCs, so any patch requests against it would only help me. > I'm willing to give this a +1, since it provides tools which primarily > benefit Accumulo developers by enabling more release testing and because it > is already authored/maintained by members of this community. That is > provided we can address any other issues, like ensuring it works for this > community, and not just for CDH (which, I imagine is a mutual goal of the > authors). > Yeah, this part should be a straight forward update of docs. I've been building against the ASF releases for about a year. -- Sean
