On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Jim Apple <jbap...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Roman, thank you for taking the time to write to us.
>
> Oddly, just as you were sending this, I was resolving
>
> https://issues.cloudera.org/browse/IMPALA-4068
>
> with this commit
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-impala/commit/90ffefd1140e3fcfbbdc26496a7e177eb752ae1c
>
> It removes the links to download, install, try as VM, try as Docker, and try
> in cloud.

Odd indeed. But also kind of fun. This is the fastest any podling
reacted to my feedback ;-)

The website looks much better now.

> We have started migrating our docs to ASF, though John and Laurel (cced)
> have not finished yet. Their organizing JIRA is here:
>
> https://issues.cloudera.org/browse/IMPALA-3398

Great!

> In the meantime, the commit above changed the docs link to be a page about
> available documentation. This page includes a link to the Cloudera docs, but
> it calls them out as such. Does that meet the guidelines, in your opinion?
> The guidelines do allow "links to external documentation".

Almost. It really would be better to spell it explicitly (and avoid a phrase
Cloudera's Hadoop distribution -- since this is something ASF is not
looking too kindly on as per http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/)

I'd suggest something along the lines:
   "Documentation for previous versions of Impala in CDH"

> As far as the docs saying "Apache Impala (incubating)", I have cc:ed David
> Middler, a lawyer for Cloudera. I am not a lawyer and I do not quite
> understand what words one should use to refer to this Impala thing between
> the TM transfer and the first release - "Cloudera Impala"? just "Impala"?

The confusion was due to the context -- that link pretending to be an official
Apache Impala (incubating) documentation. I think with the clarification we're
talking above -- your doc usage is fine now.

> The patch I linked to above also changes the github link to point to the
> Apache github repo for Impala.
>
> I think that touches on each of the issues you raised.

Indeed! Still, perhaps you can take one extra suggestions I've
articulated above.

Thanks,
Roman.

Reply via email to