+1

Best,
Leesf

<[email protected]> 于2019年10月22日周二 上午3:40写道:

>  +1
>
> Balaji.V     On Monday, October 21, 2019, 11:38:01 AM PDT, Y. Ethan Guo
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>  +1 on RFC.  It's good to have a few pages of RFC to get a quick look of an
> idea.  It doesn't have to be a full standard like some IETF RFCs.
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:31 AM Taher Koitawala <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.apache.org_confluence_display_HUDI_Hudi-2Bfor-2BContinuous-2BDeep-2BAnalytics&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=BtmOFE9z1baBO8A7gX7xN4a_-bJ8W97q2GBCg2HecaA&e=
> > > > )
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Request-5Ffor-5FComments&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=939DidQWDsxU0ERbE2lGD3Jjj5iwqKc8d4_TyoPWaJ8&e=
> > 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. :)
> > > >
> > >
> >

Reply via email to