On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Kyle Dunn <kd...@pivotal.io> wrote: > What have we decided here? Fold libhdfs3 back into HAWQ for the near term > and revisit spinning it out in a dedicated submodule / repo down the road?
To me this sounds like a near term decision. IOW, the other repo is clearly read/only at this point. > Do we need to have a consensus vote for this action? I don't think we have any contrarian opinion. I appreciated what Matthew Rocklin had to say, but to me it sounds like his interest will be taken care of long term. Matt, please let us know if you disagree. Now, > As for the outstanding PRs and issues in the current repo, who will be > moving those to HAWQ? Are we expecting users to do this? Well, see -- that's *exactly* the problem with how this project was managed. At this point we can't even reach the interested parties in a broadcast manner. Personally, I suggest that whoever was managing the library in a separate repo on GH (and it sounds like Zhanwei Wang is that person) pings the submitters of all the oustanding PRs (via comment on the PR) telling them to resubmit via HAWQ's JIRA. > I'm taking the > "liberty" of responding to each of these users explaining the situation but > would like to know what to report on that front. That's exactly the right thing to do. So I guess it is you and Zhanwei Wang on the hook to do that. Thanks, Roman.
