On Dec 13, 2010, at 11:14 PM, Eric Sammer wrote:
- Codify (by vote) whether design plans are required or if an
informal email
indicating intent is sufficient, and under what circumstances. Provide
examples to clarify circumstances. Solves the long term but not
HADOOP-6685.
We had a presentation about my plans for this jira in June and both
Tom and Doug attended and asked questions. It wasn't a lack of
communication. At that time, they didn't like the proposal but didn't
plan to block it.
In general code changes shouldn't require a vote. The goal is to work
together as a community to produce code, not make everything a
lawyerly argument.
Owen, would you be amenable to working to find a way to remove the
PB dep in
support of HADOOP-6685 and handling bootstrapping with either one of
the
existing deps or simple hard coded length, type, value serialization /
deserialization similar to Writables?
Of course it is possible, but it is a far worse engineering solution.
ProtocolBuffers do exactly what I need, it is foolish to implement an
hand-crafted replacement. My point is that a dependence on Avro was
accepted without issue. No one had an issue when I added snakeyaml.
All of the objections are fundamentally based in a dislike of
serializations other than Yarn.
-- Owen
