Good point. Even for HIP we initially had gdoc as the starting point and once ratified we planned to move it to cwiki. But practical issues like retaining formatting, porting over diagrams, version history between two things made it cumbersome. So IMO single place is actually good. Wdyt?
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 5:02 AM vino yang <[email protected]> wrote: > +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. :) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > > > >
