+1. The project split is a lie.
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Ian Holsman <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 full agreement. > > I think it will be a pita admin wise (due to how svn authorization is set > up), so it might slow down creation of a new branch, but its worth it. > > --- > Ian Holsman > AOL Inc > [email protected] > (703) 879-3128 / AIM:ianholsman > > it's just a technicality > > On Jan 14, 2011, at 2:25 AM, Eric Baldeschwieler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Death to the project split! Or short of that, anything to tame it. >> >> On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:18 PM, Nigel Daley wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> As I look more at the impact of the common/MR/HDFS project split on what >>> and how we release Hadoop, I feel like the split needs an adjustment. Many >>> folks I've talked to agree that the project split has caused us a splitting >>> headache. I think 1 relatively small change could alleviate some of that. >>> >>> CURRENT SVN REPO: >>> >>> hadoop / [common, mapreduce, hdfs] / trunk >>> hadoop / [common, mapreduce, hdfs] / branches >>> >>> PROPOSAL: >>> >>> hadoop / trunk / [common, mapreduce, hdfs] >>> hadoop / branches / [common, mapreduce, hdfs] >>> >>> We're a long way from releasing these 3 projects independently. Given >>> that, they should be branched and released as a unit. This SVN structure >>> enforces that and provides a more natural place to keep a top level build >>> and pkg scripts that operate across all 3 projects. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Nige >> >
