on that note... I propose we discuss un-splitting the project altogether. On Jan 14, 2011, at 3:39 AM, Jakob Homan wrote:
> +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 >>> >>
