On Jun 6, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
>
>>
>> Let's face it: this happened because it was HBase. If it was almost
>> anyone else, it would have sat there.... and *that's* the point where I'm
>> mainly concerned.
>
>
> If you want to feel better, take a look at HDFS-941, HDFS-347, and HDFS-918
> - these are patches that HBase has been asking for for nearly 2 years in
> some cases and haven't gone in. Satisfied?
These cases don't appear to be about re-classification of an API from
private to semi-public. So no, I'm not. None of these appear to answer the
base set of question:
- What is the real criteria for changing an API from private to limited?
- How "closely related" does a project need to be to get this privilege?
(Yes, I've read the classification docs. That's too vague.)
I can tell you feel I'm picking on HBase, especially in light of my
flat out rejection of the "we want to mmap() blocks" case. But if this
reclassification had been with anything else outside of the Hadoop project, I
would have asked the same thing. It raises important questions that we as a
project need to answer.
