On Feb 29, 2012 8:07 AM, "Alex Karasulu" <akaras...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >... > > They remain. > > > > Keeping them is the right thing for our community and product. That is our > > determination, and is our Right. > > > > > Sorry but I don't think that's right.
Please explain what information you have that states we cannot use org.tigris.subversion for our deprecated APIs. I'm very curious because I wasn't aware of any prohibition on this. You seem to know something the Subversion community does not. Explain, please. (and yes, I know exactly who owns org.tigris.subversion; I'd like to see if you do) > > Sqoop has determined backwards compatibility is important to their > > community and wants to keep this (deprecated) interface for a while. So > > where is the problem here, people? > > > > > It's fine but those com.cloudera packages don't need to be hosted here. The community says it is best for their product to bundle the deprecated APIs. Do you have some information from the community that says otherwise? > They can be hosted elsewhere and the backwards compatibility issue can > still be handled. They can, but the community feels it best for their users to bundle it as part of the product. Do you know something about the users that leads you to believe they would prefer to get the deprecated interfaces from somewhere else? As a separate download? An extra step? What do you know that the Sqoop devs do not? > > Really. What is the problem with the extra interfaces? > > > > > The package namespace is not ours. It's that simple G. Are we allowed to use it? Is the namespace designed/defined for us to use it? Is somebody attempting to recover the deprecated namespace? Do the owners *want* us to continue using it? Those are the questions. I know Subversion is allowed to use org.tigris for its deprecated APIs. Who are you to say otherwise? Why do you assume you know better? How is it you know what package name I can or cannot use? > > There is no legal (trademark or copyright) problem that I'm aware of. There > > is no technical problem that I'm aware of. > > > OK do we have the right to create any kind of package or class under > com.cloudera (or any other companies packages)? I bet they would get pissed if we created arbitrary packages in their namespace, but that is NOT the question at hand. The question is whether we can continue to use the old package name for backwards compatibility purposes. Have you asked Cloudera or the community if anybody told them, "no, we want our old package name back." No, I bet you didn't. I bet you saw com.cloudera and just generalized the issue into "somebody else's namespace" without full detail or background, which the community already had. You mentioned slippery slope earlier. Don't you see you're already on it? And this is the reason the Board stays out of technical decisions? Only the community knows best. You're on that slope, attempting to apply *your* technical mandates upon a project. But they know more than you. -g
