Hi Shivram, I suggest we explore this topic a bit more on general@incubator. Since any renames like that could be painful enough, I'd rather we take our time to see what options are available to us.
Thanks, Roman. On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Shivram Mani <[email protected]> wrote: > There are many other projects (eg: zookeeper) that have moved to a top > level project over time. > Lets revisit this in the future if it becomes a top level project and my > guess is even the name PXF(pivotal extenstion framework) wouldn't be apt > then. Will stick to org.apache.hawq.pxf until then. > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Caleb Welton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The main precedent that immediately came to my mind was HCatalog. HCatalog >> used to be in the org.apache.hcatalog then migrated to >> org.apache.hive.hcatalog when it became part of the hive project. >> >> On one hand I prefer org.apache.pxf because it allows for the potential to >> be an independent project in the future, but given that there is no Apache >> PXF project this doesn't yet seem appropriate. If we follow the precedent >> set by hcatalog then org.apache.hawq.pxf would seem to be the best >> reflection of the current state of the world. >> >> -Caleb >> >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Shivram Mani <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > We are in the process of changing the package namespace for PXF. It >> > currently uses com.pivotal.hawq and we will be moving this to org.apache. >> > After a brief chat with Roman, it seems more future proof if we use >> > org.apache.pxf instead of org.apache.hawq.pxf. If PXF were to extended to >> > work with any alternate sink (not necessarily HAWQ) org.apache.pxf would >> be >> > more relevant. >> > >> > Thoughts ? >> > >> > -- >> > shivram mani >> > >> > > > > -- > shivram mani
