sounds great! +1 Cheers Lei
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:50 PM, Lei Chang <[email protected]> wrote: > > My understanding of the intention here is not to maintain our own copy > and > > and the target is to contribute it back to ORC project. It is just for > > improving developer efficiency that might be introduced by delay from > > acceptance from another project. > > > > Hong and I had a offline discussion, I think we can have a better way for > > this. From initial development, we even do not need to change the library > > and if changes are needed, the proposal is to start JIRAs and submit pull > > requests on Apache ORC. > > That actually would be an ideal choice. Another choice, of course, would > be to work with ORC community to enable plug-points that would then > enable you to replace/augment parts of ORC library functionality with > your own code (C++ OOP is supposed to be good for that ;-)). > > Finally, if all else fails you can always maintain a copy of the > library in a branch > waiting for all your required changes to find their way into the ORC > release > propper. > > And speaking of branches: at the end of the day our #1 priority should > be unblocking the upcoming HAWQ release. While we can keep the conversation > going on what to do with the ORC, we need to get a release branch without > that commit out so that we can have a release done. > > Makes sense? > > Thanks, > Roman. >
