agree Vinoth, +1 Vinoth Chandar <[email protected]> 于2019年10月22日周二 下午8:31写道：
> 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. :) > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >
