+1 agree Thomas: For some general ideas, we can write gdoc and open a "DISCUSS" ML thread.
Best, Vino Thomas Weise <[email protected]> 于2019年10月22日周二 下午12:45写道： > Just in case that wasn't considered: Not every document needs to be on > cwiki, it is perfectly fine to write up ideas that are not a formal "HIP" > in gdocs or similar. > > Thomas > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:40 PM Nishith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Encourages folks to read and write designs/ideas. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Oct 21, 2019, at 6:30 PM, leesf <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > +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. :) > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >
