Agree Vinoth +1 Regards, Taher Koitawala
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 5:49 PM Bhavani Sudha <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 on RFC. Makes sense to me. > > > On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 8:29 PM Vinoth Chandar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Someone asked me this and made me thinking about it. While HIP process > > covers concrete proposals to Hudi, sometimes we may need to just write up > > some ideas and solicit comments (e.g HudiLink > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HUDI/Hudi+for+Continuous+Deep+Analytics > > ) > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments RFCs are used for > > defining, reasoning about Internet standards. > > > > I would like to propose that > > - we can rename the HIP process to RFC, with an additional use-case of > > covering docs written purely for discussion/feedback. For e.g, Flink > > support thread was dense to follow, someone could have used a document to > > fully present their ideas (we will still keep discussion on mailing > list). > > - While I concede renaming may be cosmetic, RFC (Request For Comments) > has > > a broader scope, which I like. :) > > >
