On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:50 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 5:39 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > The community will be less willing to accept large >> > changes that require multiple rounds of patches for stability and API >> > convergence. Our contributions to Libhdfs++ in the HDFS community took a >> > significantly long time for the very same reason. >> >> Please don't use bad experiences from another open source community as >> leverage in this discussion. I'm sorry that things didn't go the way >> you wanted in Apache Hadoop but this is a distinct community which >> happens to operate under a similar open governance model. > > > There are some more radical and community building options as well. Take > the subversion project as a precedent. With subversion, any Apache > committer can request and receive a commit bit on some large fraction of > subversion. > > So why not take this a bit further and give every parquet committer a > commit bit in Arrow? Or even make them be first class committers in Arrow? > Possibly even make it policy that every Parquet committer who asks will be > given committer status in Arrow. > > That relieves a lot of the social anxiety here. Parquet committers can't be > worried at that point whether their patches will get merged; they can just > merge them. Arrow shouldn't worry much about inviting in the Parquet > committers. After all, Arrow already depends a lot on parquet so why not > invite them in?
hi Ted, I for one am with you on this idea, and don't see it as all that radical. The Arrow and Parquet communities are working toward the same goals: open standards for storage and in-memory analytics. This is part of why so there is so much overlap already amongst the committers and PMC members. We are stronger working together than fragmented. - Wes
