Thanks, this looks good to me. Regards, Arvind Prabhakar
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Gwen Shapira <[email protected]> wrote: > Agree. That makes sense. > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:55 PM, David Robson > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would like to see an addition to the note that says: > > > > Latest stable release is 1.4.4 (download, documentation). Latest > experimental release is 1.99.3 (download, documentation) - Note that > > 1.99.3 is not compatible with 1.4.4 and not feature complete, it is not > intended for production deployment. > > > > Or something along those lines - basically the I would like to see the > phrase "not for production deployment" in there somewhere. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gwen Shapira [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 August 2014 2:20 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Discussing solutions to Sqoop1 and Sqoop2 confusion (was: > Code name for Sqoop 2) > > > > Thanks to everyone contributing to the discussion. > > > > I think it makes sense to mark Sqoop2 as Sqoop-1.99.3-prerelease and > make our site a bit clearer about its lack of backward compatibility. > > > > If this doesn't help - we can re-visit the rename idea. > > > > How about taking the following steps: > > - Change the blurb on our front page from: > > "Latest stable release is 1.4.4 (download, documentation). Latest cut of > Sqoop2 is 1.99.3 (download, documentation)." > > > > to: > > "Latest stable release is 1.4.4 (download, documentation). Latest > experimental release is 1.99.3 (download, documentation) - Note that > > 1.99.3 is not compatible with 1.4.4 and not feature complete." > > > > - Change all references to 1.99.3 to "1.99.3-prerelease" > > > > - Add clarifications in Sqoop2 docs that Sqoop1 parameters and > connectors are not supported. > > > > - I'd like to also change the name of our Sqoop2 shell client to > something less confusing, but can't think of anything good here :) > > > > What do you think? > > > > Gwen > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Kathleen Ting <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Agreed with David and Arvind that codenames can be confusing to new > users. > >> > >> +1 on option 4 which is a combination of the following: > >> (a) following Apache Hadoop precedence and calling it > >> Sqoop-1.99.3-prerelease > >> (b) putting a disclaimer that Sqoop-1.99.3-prerelease is not intended > >> for production deployment on its download link > >> (c) using explicit UI messaging to warn Sqoop-1.99.3-prerelease users > >> that it does not have feature parity with Sqoop1 > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 6:39 PM, David Robson > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> So it seems like the problem we are trying to solve is for a new user, > they download Sqoop 1.99.3 - have bad experiences because it is still > experimental (based on recent mail threads this may put them off Sqoop for > good). So we should make it as easy as possible to download the correct > version of Sqoop for them. > >>> > >>> I believe for a new user - codenames cause more confusion. Assuming a > user knew nothing about Sqoop and was given the choice of Sqoop 1.4.5 or > Sqoop Pelican - how would they know which one to choose? Now if they were > given the choice of Sqoop 1.4.5 or Sqoop 1.99.3-alpha - it would be much > more obvious. Of course either way you could put some text on the homepage > / download page explaining the two releases which should be done either way. > >>> > >>> I don't think we should add to the confusion by bringing in codenames > - and instead stick with the industry standard alpha / beta / stable > terminology as Arvind suggested. > >>> > >>> So I would vote on option 2 - and we should put a warning like "not > intended for production deployment" on the link to download Sqoop > 1.99.3-alpha. > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Abraham Elmahrek [mailto:[email protected]] > >>> Sent: Saturday, 2 August 2014 6:01 AM > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Subject: Re: Discussing solutions to Sqoop1 and Sqoop2 confusion > >>> (was: Code name for Sqoop 2) > >>> > >>> +1 for proposal 1 as well. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Venkat Ranganathan < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> +1 for propsal 1 also > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> > >>>> Venkat > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho > >>>> <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > I don’t have any other suggestion either, so let’s discuss which > >>>> > one > >>>> would people prefer? > >>>> > > >>>> > I’m personally in favor of proposal 1). > >>>> > > >>>> > Jarcec > >>>> > > >>>> > On Jul 28, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Gwen Shapira <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> >> Thanks for the great summary. I don't have additional suggestions. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Gwen > >>>> >> > >>>> >> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Arvind Prabhakar > >>>> >> <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> >>> Thanks Gwen and Jarcec. It appears that we all agree to the few > >>>> >>> basic points below: > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> a) Sqoop2 is promising effort although not near completion. We > >>>> >>> agree > >>>> that > >>>> >>> there is no need to discuss shutting that down at this time. > >>>> >>> b) The naming of Sqoop2 is such that it raises expectations in > >>>> >>> users/adopters to be better than Sqoop(1) and thus leads to > confusion. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> The second point (b) above is the key issue that needs resolution. > >>>> >>> The options discussed thus far are as follows: > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> 1. Put a code name for Sqoop2 so that it is not confused with > Sqoop(1). > >>>> >>> This seems to have good community support. > >>>> >>> 2. Use a explicit labels such as "stable" vs > "beta/alpha/experimental" > >>>> for > >>>> >>> various Sqoop releases. > >>>> >>> 3. Use explicit UI messaging to warn Sqoop2 users that it is not > >>>> >>> the > >>>> same > >>>> >>> as Sqoop(1) and is far behind on feature completeness and > stability. > >>>> There > >>>> >>> seems to be some concerns around how this can be done given the > >>>> >>> client/server architecture of Sqoop2. > >>>> >>> 4. A combination of options 2 and 3 above. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> Are there any suggestions to mitigate this problem? Perhaps we > >>>> >>> should cross-post this thread to user list as well to see if > >>>> >>> they agree with > >>>> the > >>>> >>> options here and/or if they have any other suggestions. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> Regards, > >>>> >>> Arvind Prabhakar > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho > >>>> >>> <[email protected] > >>>> > > >>>> >>> wrote: > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> Hi Arvind, > >>>> >>>> thank you very much for sharing your concerns! You’ve risen a > >>>> >>>> very > >>>> good > >>>> >>>> points. > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> I personally see value in Sqoop 2 as the new architecture will > >>>> >>>> allow > >>>> us to > >>>> >>>> cover much more use cases, various compliancy regulations and > >>>> >>>> will eventually simplify user’s life. Based on the recent > >>>> >>>> increase in dev activity, it seems that I’m not the only one > >>>> >>>> who do believes in that > >>>> and > >>>> >>>> hence I strongly believe that discontinuing the effort doesn’t > >>>> >>>> seem > >>>> as the > >>>> >>>> right way to go. I’m more then happy to discuss this topic > >>>> >>>> further if > >>>> you > >>>> >>>> believe that it’s the right way though. > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Having said that I do believe in Sqoop 2, I have to second Gwen > >>>> >>>> that current situation is very confusing to our users. I’ve > >>>> >>>> seen > >>>> significant > >>>> >>>> number of users confused about why 1.99.4 do not have > >>>> >>>> Avro/HBase/Hive integration when Sqoop 1 already have that. I > >>>> >>>> was anticipating the confusion and hence I’ve suggested to use > >>>> >>>> version number 1.99.x > >>>> instead of > >>>> >>>> 2.0.0 back when we were working on getting the first cut out of > >>>> >>>> the > >>>> door. I > >>>> >>>> hoped that version 1.99.x will make obvious to everybody that > >>>> >>>> it’s not “2.0.0” quite yet. Sadly it seems that this alone did > >>>> >>>> not helped as > >>>> much as > >>>> >>>> I hoped. > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Hence I do see value in changing our public messaging as you’ve > >>>> suggested > >>>> >>>> to make the message more clearer. I personally like the idea > >>>> >>>> with > >>>> code name > >>>> >>>> as that is quite popular in other projects and companies > >>>> >>>> (remember > >>>> Windows > >>>> >>>> Longorn?) and it seems to be conveying the message. I do see a > >>>> >>>> lot of variability of using that code name though - I don’t > >>>> >>>> think that we necessarily have to remove any possible reference > >>>> >>>> to “Sqoop 2” from > >>>> the > >>>> >>>> face of earth. I believe that the code name is very well suited > >>>> >>>> for > >>>> our > >>>> >>>> webpage, wiki and perhaps a blog posts to make obvious that > >>>> >>>> there is > >>>> just > >>>> >>>> one single stable Sqoop version and then some ongoing effort > >>>> >>>> that do > >>>> have > >>>> >>>> available several cuts. I believe that just by doing that we > >>>> >>>> will > >>>> decrease > >>>> >>>> confusion about what version should user download and use. We > >>>> >>>> can > >>>> discuss > >>>> >>>> to what extent we want to push the code name and to what extent > >>>> >>>> we > >>>> will > >>>> >>>> keep the reference to “Sqoop 2”. After all I’m confident that > >>>> >>>> in not > >>>> too > >>>> >>>> distant future, we will have Sqoop 2 that will offer the > >>>> >>>> comparable capability and features as Sqoop 1. > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> I don’t think that the code name is the only idea that will > >>>> >>>> decrease > >>>> the > >>>> >>>> immediate user confusion and hence I’m happy to hear others > thoughts! > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Jarcec > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> On Jul 26, 2014, at 6:00 PM, Gwen Shapira > >>>> >>>> <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>>> Thanks Arvind for your detailed explanation. > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> I agree that naming releases stable and alpha is a good idea. > >>>> >>>>> I don't agree that it will solve the issue, but we can't know > until we try. > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> Considering that Sqoop2 is intentionally a client-server > >>>> >>>>> architecture with multiple clients and a REST API as an > >>>> >>>>> additional access point, I believe that it is not feasible to > mark UI as beta. > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> I want to stress that I personally believe that Sqoop2 is a > >>>> >>>>> very viable branch effort, to the extent that I am actively > >>>> >>>>> contributing > >>>> to > >>>> >>>>> it. > >>>> >>>>> As Sqoop2 becomes more and more viable alternative to Sqoop1, > >>>> >>>>> we need to prepare, as a community, to support both versions. > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> Considering the number of features currently in Sqoop1 and the > >>>> >>>>> number of production Sqoop1 users, I can see us supporting > >>>> >>>>> both versions for the next 2 years. Making it easy for the > >>>> >>>>> community to support both is my top concern here. Having to > >>>> >>>>> resolve endless confusions for two years doesn't seem like a > >>>> >>>>> happy future to me. I see the Python community fighting the > >>>> >>>>> same issue since they broke compatibility between versions 2 > >>>> >>>>> and 3. I'd like to see us learn from those > >>>> mistakes > >>>> >>>>> and do better. > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> I agree that a discussion would have been better than a vote. > >>>> >>>>> I was under the mistaken impression that there is a consensus > >>>> >>>>> on the > >>>> matter. > >>>> >>>>> I renamed the thread to make it clear that we are interested > >>>> >>>>> in hearing opinions from the rest of the community on this > subject. > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> Bike-sheddingly yours, > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> Gwen Shapira > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Arvind Prabhakar > >>>> >>>>> <[email protected] > >>>> > > >>>> >>>> wrote: > >>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the detailed pointers Gwen. I understand your > >>>> >>>>>> concerns > >>>> better > >>>> >>>>>> now. My understanding from these threads as well as what you > >>>> >>>>>> have > >>>> >>>> described > >>>> >>>>>> is that the confusion you refer to stems from the fact that > >>>> >>>>>> Sqoop2 > >>>> is > >>>> >>>> not > >>>> >>>>>> at feature parity with Sqoop(1) yet. > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> It will be great to *discuss* what are the various ways to > >>>> >>>>>> address > >>>> this > >>>> >>>> and > >>>> >>>>>> then call a vote to decide upon the approach to use. Some > >>>> >>>>>> other > >>>> >>>> approaches > >>>> >>>>>> that I can suggest are: > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> 1. Calling Sqoop1 explicitly as "stable" in our downloads > >>>> >>>>>> section, > >>>> or > >>>> >>>> even > >>>> >>>>>> within the release label. So instead of Sqoop-1.4.5, it would > >>>> >>>>>> be Sqoop-1.4.5-stable. > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> 2. Alternatively calling Sqoop2 explicitly "alpha", "beta" or > >>>> >>>>>> "experimental". Eg - Sqoop-1.99.4 would become > Sqoop-1.99.4-beta. > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> 3. Or perhaps a combination of both of these. > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> 4. Plus good UI messaging that clearly outlines the critical > >>>> differences > >>>> >>>>>> between these to products. > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> Personally, I do not believe that having a code name will > >>>> >>>>>> solve the > >>>> >>>> issue > >>>> >>>>>> at hand, and may even make it worse. If the motivation is to > >>>> >>>>>> call > >>>> out > >>>> >>>>>> Sqoop2 as something "not-Sqoop", then perhaps we should > >>>> >>>>>> discuss the viability of this branch effort. If we conclude > >>>> >>>>>> that it is not > >>>> going to > >>>> >>>>>> progress any further, we could call a vote on discontinuing > >>>> >>>>>> this > >>>> effort > >>>> >>>> and > >>>> >>>>>> instead focusing on the main Sqoop1 branch alone. > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> Hope you understand my point of view on this. > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> Regards, > >>>> >>>>>> Arvind Prabhakar > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gwen Shapira < > >>>> [email protected]> > >>>> >>>>>> wrote: > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Arvind, > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> Here are few more threads from the last month where we had > >>>> >>>>>>> to > >>>> explain > >>>> >>>>>>> Sqoop2 status or explain that you can't use "sqoop import" > >>>> >>>>>>> with Sqoop2, etc: > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/sqoop-user/201407.mbox/%3CC > >>>> A% > >>>> 2BP7NPNTFuPYqf74M5OFw4e9xKZm2ns%3DZ0ydkkuJ06Jcg31hnw%40mail.gmail.co > >>>> m% > >>>> 3E > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/sqoop-user/201407.mbox/%3CC > >>>> AA > >>>> J8D%3D9Ho%3DYH7jdavNAb1gwz19Z5dapmS98yR71KmM5LsjCEVw%40mail.gmail.co > >>>> m% > >>>> 3E > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/sqoop-user/201407.mbox/%3CC > >>>> AP > >>>> wc21YtdgAm9jO3%2Bs0asBZ2JkG%3DVCp5PLpkO5xQuuBPKQGuTw%40mail.gmail.co > >>>> m% > >>>> 3E > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/sqoop-user/201406.mbox/%3CC > >>>> AO > >>>> [email protected]%3E > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> In addition, I noticed the problem when talking to users in > >>>> >>>>>>> conferences, customers, members of support team, etc (not to > >>>> mention > >>>> >>>>>>> that I got confused personally when I started out.) I didn't > >>>> >>>>>>> bring much evidence in my first email because I thought > >>>> there > >>>> >>>>>>> was a wide consensus about the problem. > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> I have several goals with the code-name: > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> * We need to remove the impression that the new version is > >>>> >>>>>>> like > >>>> Sqoop > >>>> >>>>>>> only better. It is only somewhat like Sqoop and will not be > >>>> strictly > >>>> >>>>>>> better for many months yet. > >>>> >>>>>>> * We need to clarify that this project is not even close to > >>>> production > >>>> >>>>>>> quality. > >>>> >>>>>>> * We need to make it easy for us to quickly figure out which > >>>> version > >>>> >>>>>>> the user is talking about. We also need to make it easy for > >>>> >>>>>>> the > >>>> users > >>>> >>>>>>> to describe what they are using. > >>>> >>>>>>> * We want to have fun :) > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> I think the name Pelican Project will help with all goals: > >>>> >>>>>>> - It is clearly not the same as Sqoop. So there's no > >>>> >>>>>>> existing expectations on what will be supported. > >>>> >>>>>>> - It is a "Project" and not a product yet. > >>>> >>>>>>> - Sqoop and Pelican don't look or sound similar. No one can > >>>> >>>>>>> expect > >>>> to > >>>> >>>>>>> use Sqoop by running "pelican-shell" or to use Pelican by > >>>> >>>>>>> calling "sqoop import". > >>>> >>>>>>> - And a cute mascot will make every future presentation and > >>>> >>>>>>> blog > >>>> post > >>>> >>>>>>> on the topic much more fun. > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> You do bring up good points of concern: > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> a) Existing releases: I disagree code-names for in-progress > >>>> >>>>>>> development cause too much confusion. They seem fairly > >>>> >>>>>>> common in > >>>> the > >>>> >>>>>>> software world. > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> http://royal.pingdom.com/2010/05/27/the-developer-obsession-with-cod > >>>> e- > >>>> names-114-interesting-examples/ > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> b) "could impact the reproducibility of previous release > >>>> >>>>>>> builds > >>>> which > >>>> >>>>>>> is not very good for the project." > >>>> >>>>>>> This sounds fairly serious. Can you elaborate what you mean > >>>> >>>>>>> by reproducibility of release build? > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> Gwen > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Arvind Prabhakar < > >>>> [email protected]> > >>>> >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Gwen, > >>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>> Other than the recent thread [1] on our user list, is there > >>>> >>>>>>>> any > >>>> other > >>>> >>>>>>>> precedent regarding the confusion this issue has caused? If > >>>> >>>>>>>> so, I > >>>> >>>> would > >>>> >>>>>>>> appreciate if you could point it out. > >>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>> Personally, I do agree that we ought to have a better > >>>> >>>>>>>> mechanism to communicate the completeness (or > >>>> >>>>>>>> incompleteness) of a release in > >>>> >>>> order to > >>>> >>>>>>>> ensure the users understand what benefits or drawbacks they > >>>> >>>>>>>> may > >>>> get. > >>>> >>>>>>>> Incidentally, this was the primary reason for numbering the > >>>> >>>>>>>> Sqoop2 > >>>> >>>>>>> release > >>>> >>>>>>>> as 1.99.x, thereby indicating that the release is not quite > >>>> >>>>>>>> 2.0 > >>>> yet, > >>>> >>>>>>> which > >>>> >>>>>>>> seems to be not working as well as expected. > >>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>> One traditional way to alleviate this issue would be to > >>>> >>>>>>>> label the > >>>> >>>> release > >>>> >>>>>>>> alpha/beta etc. I prefer doing that instead of putting a > >>>> >>>>>>>> code > >>>> name for > >>>> >>>>>>> the > >>>> >>>>>>>> release for a couple of reasons - a) we have already made > >>>> releases of > >>>> >>>>>>>> Sqoop2 with the previous versioning scheme and hence > >>>> >>>>>>>> changing the > >>>> name > >>>> >>>>>>>> could cause more confusion; and b) renaming the branches to > >>>> >>>>>>>> the > >>>> new > >>>> >>>> name > >>>> >>>>>>>> could impact the reproducibility of previous release builds > >>>> >>>>>>>> which > >>>> is > >>>> >>>> not > >>>> >>>>>>>> very good for the project. > >>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>> Another alternative to consider would be to have very clear > >>>> messaging > >>>> >>>> in > >>>> >>>>>>>> the user-interface of Sqoop2 that it is still work in > >>>> >>>>>>>> progress > >>>> and not > >>>> >>>>>>>> considered at par with Sqoop1. > >>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>> [1] http://s.apache.org/TvD > >>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>> >>>>>>>> Arvind Prabhakar > >>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Venkat Ranganathan < > >>>> >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 for Pelican. But documentation should not be called The > >>>> Pelican > >>>> >>>>>>> Brief > >>>> >>>>>>>>> :) > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> Venkat > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Abraham Elmahrek < > >>>> [email protected]> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>> >>>>>>>>>> There's something about schlep (or schlepper) that I'm > >>>> >>>>>>>>>> having > >>>> >>>> trouble > >>>> >>>>>>>>>> resisting... but... +1 to Pelican. > >>>> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho < > >>>> >>>>>>> [email protected]> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I’m obviously biased, but +1 to Pelican. > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jarcec > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 24, 2014, at 7:06 PM, Martin, Nick > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>> >>>> wrote: > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Pelican > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Gwen Shapira [mailto:[email protected]] > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 9:51 PM > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Code name for Sqoop 2 (please vote!) > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As you may have noticed on the user list, Sqoop2 > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> confuses the > >>>> hell > >>>> >>>>>>> out > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> of everyone. > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem is the name - Sqoop2 sounds newer > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>> >>>> therefore > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> better. People expect better quality and more features - > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> which > >>>> we > >>>> >>>>>>> don't > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> deliver :( > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, I propose finding Sqoop2 a project code name. > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This > >>>> way > >>>> >>>>>>> it > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> will sound experimental and will not have the number "2" > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> next > >>>> to > >>>> >>>> it. > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We can use the code name to mark the branches in the > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> repo, the > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> documentation, the Hue frontend, etc. This will prevent > >>>> confusion > >>>> >>>> as > >>>> >>>>>>> the > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> name Sqoop will go back to refer to just one project, > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and one > >>>> that > >>>> >>>>>>>>> actually > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> works. > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Suggested names: > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Project Pelican (Based on the animal on O'Reilly's > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sqoop > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> book) > >>>> >>>>>>> Project > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Schlep (Yiddish for "moving heavy package") > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Friends, contributors, committers and PMC members - > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> please > >>>> respond > >>>> >>>>>>>>> with > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> either: > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * Vote (+1) on one of the names above > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * Your own suggestion > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We'll be looking to close the vote by August 1st (Next > week). > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gwen > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>> >>>>>>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > >>>> >>>>>>>>> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the > >>>> >>>>>>>>> individual or > >>>> >>>>>>> entity to > >>>> >>>>>>>>> which it is addressed and may contain information that is > >>>> >>>> confidential, > >>>> >>>>>>>>> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. > >>>> >>>>>>>>> If > >>>> the > >>>> >>>>>>> reader > >>>> >>>>>>>>> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are > >>>> >>>>>>>>> hereby > >>>> >>>> notified > >>>> >>>>>>> that > >>>> >>>>>>>>> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, > >>>> >>>>>>>>> disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly > >>>> >>>>>>>>> prohibited. If you > >>>> have > >>>> >>>>>>>>> received this communication in error, please contact the > >>>> >>>>>>>>> sender > >>>> >>>>>>> immediately > >>>> >>>>>>>>> and delete it from your system. Thank You. > >>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > >>>> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or > >>>> entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is > >>>> confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable > >>>> law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, > >>>> you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, > >>>> distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is > >>>> strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in > >>>> error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your > system. Thank You. > >>>> >
