On 9 March 2012 05:42, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.comwrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 12:43:47AM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org
wrote:
On
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
wrote:
Leo, are you out there?
Hmm? Oh, this again...
Having company
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Benson Margulies
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com
On 03/07/2012 11:31 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
Not trying to beat a dead horse to death here but I'm starting to think
that we might have had some basis to these package namespace issues. The
recent private Lucene-Commons threads show what can happen if this policy
is that hmmm liberal. Don't
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
On 03/07/2012 11:31 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
Not trying to beat a dead horse to death here but I'm starting to think
that we might have had some basis to these package namespace issues. The
recent private
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 12:43:47AM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
On 03/07/2012 11:31 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
Not trying to beat a dead horse to death here but I'm starting to think
that we might have had some basis
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.comwrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 12:43:47AM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org
wrote:
On 03/07/2012 11:31 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
Not trying to beat a dead
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
wrote:
Leo, are you out there?
Hmm? Oh, this again...
Having company names or trademarks in java namespaces is a pretty
stupid convention. It gets
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org wrote:
On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 1:13:30 AM Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
Hi Daniel...
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org wrote:
We had a very similar discussion about the back word
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din
nour.moham...@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand, I totally respect that Cloudera's interest to support
their customers and provide backword compatibility, but this is
I don't see that this getting to any clear end yet. So I suggest that we
take this from a Sqoop instance to be a discussion on rules them selves.
I would like to start a [VOTE] about whether it is a *must* for podlings to
rename all packages before being a TLP or not over keeping the old package
On Feb 29, 2012 4:15 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org wrote:
On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 1:13:30 AM Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
Hi Daniel...
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org
On Feb 28, 2012 9:02 AM, Ate Douma a...@douma.nu wrote:
...
That sounds reasonable and hopefully easy to do (if not this case might
even be more worrisome then).
I'm not really sure though if Apache Extras is an appropriate location
either. I think Apache Extras intends to convey an affiliation
Hi Greg...
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 29, 2012 4:15 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org wrote:
On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 1:13:30 AM Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
Yes I did, and thanks for clarification :), and please read my as well :).
Thanks.
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Has nothing to do with incubation. You're talking about Foundation-wide
policy. You cannot impose different naming rules on podlings, than what
: [DISCUSS] - Packages renaming and backward compatibility (was:
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator)
Has nothing to do with incubation. You're talking about Foundation-wide
policy. You cannot impose different naming rules on podlings, than what is
imposed on TLPs. Please
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] - Packages renaming and backward compatibility (was:
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator)
Has nothing to do with incubation. You're talking about Foundation-wide
policy. You
On Feb 29, 2012 7:32 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din nour.moham...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Greg...
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:06 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.
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 29, 2012 4:15 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org wrote:
On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 1:13:30 AM Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote:
strictly -1 for forcing a name change on graduation.
Maybe we have some confusion here. No one is talking about changing the
name of the podling.
The discussion pertains to the presence of com.cloudera packages in the
Hi Greg...
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 29, 2012 7:32 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din nour.moham...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Greg...
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
...
They remain.
Keeping them is the
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Has nothing to do with incubation. You're talking about Foundation-wide
policy. You cannot impose different naming rules on podlings, than what is
imposed on TLPs. Please see my response in the original thread. You need a
On 29/02/12 10:02, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
I don't see that this getting to any clear end yet. So I suggest that we
take this from a Sqoop instance to be a discussion on rules them selves.
I would like to start a [VOTE] about whether it is a *must* for podlings to
rename all packages before
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Has nothing to do with incubation. You're talking about Foundation-wide
policy. You cannot impose different naming rules on podlings, than what
is
On 29/02/12 13:07, Alex Karasulu wrote:
[snip]
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)?
This is
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 29, 2012 4:15 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org wrote:
On
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din
nour.moham...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Has nothing to do with incubation. You're talking about
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Has nothing to do with incubation. You're talking about Foundation-wide
policy. You cannot impose different naming rules on podlings, than what is
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
I'd like the address this and Greg's other email but let's move this over
to the other discussion thread so this one can close and Scoop can continue
forward.
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Ian Dickinson i...@epimorphics.com wrote:
On 29/02/12 13:07, Alex Karasulu wrote:
[snip]
There is
On Feb 29, 2012 8:31 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din nour.moham...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Greg...
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I gave it more thought and IMO, I think we should raise the issue to
the
Board to get to some results,
Raise what issue? I
On Feb 29, 2012 8:45 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
...
OK do we have the right to create any kind of package or class under
com.cloudera (or any other companies packages)?
I'd like to approach it by answering this question. Because if we look at
it like this then we'll
Hi...
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Has nothing to do with incubation. You're talking about
Hi Alex
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 29, 2012 4:15 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org
I don't think it's a good question. I think that it is typical of the
sort of hypothetical question which leads to heaps of scorn from Sam.
I can imagine circumstances where it would make some sense, and some
cases where it would be evidence of a serious problem in a TLP.
The Foundation is
On Feb 29, 2012 8:34 AM, Ian Dickinson i...@epimorphics.com wrote:
On 29/02/12 10:02, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
I don't see that this getting to any clear end yet. So I suggest that we
take this from a Sqoop instance to be a discussion on rules them selves.
I would like to start a [VOTE]
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 29, 2012 8:45 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
...
OK do we have the right to create any kind of package or class under
com.cloudera (or any other companies packages)?
I'd like to approach it
Seems we're continuing the discussion in both threads now. More inline ...
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Ian Dickinson i...@epimorphics.com wrote:
On 29/02/12 13:07, Alex Karasulu wrote:
[snip]
There is no legal (trademark or copyright) problem that I'm aware of.
There
is no
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.comwrote:
I don't think it's a good question. I think that it is typical of the
sort of hypothetical question which leads to heaps of scorn from Sam.
Please! Don't invoke Sam :).
Jokes aside take a look the my last two posts
On 02/29/2012 02:45 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Feb 29, 2012 8:07 AM, Alex Karasuluakaras...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Greg Steingst...@gmail.com wrote:
...
They remain.
Keeping them is the right thing for our community and product. That is
our
determination, and is
On 02/29/2012 03:52 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
On 02/29/2012 02:45 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Feb 29, 2012 8:07 AM, Alex Karasuluakaras...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Greg Steingst...@gmail.com wrote:
...
They remain.
Keeping them is the right thing for our community and
On 29 February 2012 15:39, Ate Douma a...@douma.nu wrote:
On 02/29/2012 03:52 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
...
I would propose that an ASF project SHOULD not use 3rd party namespaces,
unless there is a very strong and logical requirement to do so.
I'm explicitly not using the term MUST here.
+1
As another point of reference, there is at least one case I'm aware of where
we HAD to put some code developed at Apache into non-org.apache namespace in
order for the code to work. This was taken up on legal discuss and, at the
time, no issues about doing so were raised.
See:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
The discussion pertains to the presence of com.cloudera packages in the
source code of a podling for the sake of backwards compatibility with
Cloudera products.
Alex this is an incorrect summary of the facts, similar
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org wrote:
As another point of reference, there is at least one case I'm aware of
where
we HAD to put some code developed at Apache into non-org.apache namespace
in
order for the code to work. This was taken up on legal discuss
gst...@gmail.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] - Packages renaming and backward compatibility (was:
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator)
On Feb 29, 2012 8:34 AM, Ian Dickinson i...@epimorphics.com
On 02/29/2012 01:33 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
No project should be allowed to graduate without solving all issues
pertaining to marks. It's a failure of the incubator in the past for
allowing other projects to do so. I'm shocked it was allowed.
This is not a trademark issue. Package names are
On 02/29/2012 06:19 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
The class/package names are merely not being deleted. Presuming that the
original code was part of the inceptional code grant, one can conclude that
the company in question doesn't mind their namespace being used by ASF
projects *for that
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org
wrote:
The discussion pertains to the presence of com.cloudera packages in the
source code of a podling for the sake of backwards compatibility with
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Ate Douma a...@douma.nu wrote:
On 02/29/2012 02:45 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Feb 29, 2012 8:07 AM, Alex Karasuluakaras...@apache.org** wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Greg Steingst...@gmail.com wrote:
...
They remain.
Keeping them is the right
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
On 02/29/2012 01:33 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
No project should be allowed to graduate without solving all issues
pertaining to marks. It's a failure of the incubator in the past for
allowing other projects to do so.
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
On 02/29/2012 06:19 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
The class/package names are merely not being deleted. Presuming that the
original code was part of the inceptional code grant, one can
conclude that
the company in
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org
Sqoop was ASL licensed and had an open following long before it
was accepted
Arvind,
(Sorry, I missed this discussion.)
On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
Please see [1] for details on why the code is like this. The short
summary is that binary compatibility requires us to respect all
extension points within the code.
[1]
On Feb 29, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
Arvind,
(Sorry, I missed this discussion.)
On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
Please see [1] for details on why the code is like this. The short
summary is that binary compatibility requires us to respect all
Hi Arun,
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Arun C Murthy a...@hortonworks.com wrote:
On Feb 29, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
Arvind,
(Sorry, I missed this discussion.)
On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
Please see [1] for details on why the code is like
+1
Niall
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Arvind Prabhakar arv...@apache.org wrote:
This is a call for vote to graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator.
Sqoop entered Incubator in June of 2011. Since then it has added three
new committers from diverse organizations, added two new PPMC
+1
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Niall Pemberton
niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
Niall
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Arvind Prabhakar arv...@apache.org wrote:
This is a call for vote to graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator.
Sqoop entered Incubator in June of 2011. Since
The vote closed a day or two ago, passing with all +1's. (fyi)
On Feb 29, 2012 2:48 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Niall Pemberton
niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
Niall
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Arvind Prabhakar
] - Packages renaming and backward compatibility
(was: Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator)
On Feb 29, 2012 8:34 AM, Ian Dickinson i...@epimorphics.com
wrote:
On 29/02/12 10:02, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
I don't see that this getting to any clear end yet. So I suggest
Thanks Greg. The vote was closed Feb 27, 2012. The tally of votes was
sent out shortly thereafter and can be found at:
http://markmail.org/message/vnti4j7kailm4hxb
Since consensus on graduation of Sqoop from Apache Incubator has been
reached, I will proceed to the next step of submitting the
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Leo, are you out there?
Hmm? Oh, this again...
Having company names or trademarks in java namespaces is a pretty
stupid convention. It gets us mess like this...
There is no policy that incubating java projects must
The source code in Sqoop still exists in both com.cloudera.sqoop and
org.apache.sqoop packages and most of the code appears to include the
com.cloudera packages and not the org.apache packages. While in the incubator
this seems fine. Are we ok with this in a TLP? I couldn't find any policy
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Alan Gates ga...@hortonworks.com wrote:
The source code in Sqoop still exists in both com.cloudera.sqoop and
org.apache.sqoop packages and most of the code appears to include the
com.cloudera packages and not the org.apache packages. While in the
incubator
Alex, Alan,
Thanks for your feedback. Please take a look at SQOOP-369:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-369
All of the source code for Sqoop that exists in com.cloudera namespace
is deprecated and the actual implementation of the product has been
moved under org.apache namespace.
Hi Alex and Alan,
we already moved entire logic to org.apache namespace. We're keeping classes in
com.cloudera in place only for compatibility with tools that are based on sqoop
(for example various connectors). However those classes do not contain any
logic, they are just inheriting from
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
Cloudera's compatibility issues are not our problem. These packages need to
go.
Citation needed. Without a written policy to that effect these things
are up for each project to decide. Jarek's rationale sounds
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org
wrote:
Cloudera's compatibility issues are not our problem. These packages need
to
go.
Citation needed.
I did not think we needed one:
Good catch
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Alan Gates ga...@hortonworks.com wrote:
The source code in Sqoop still exists in both com.cloudera.sqoop and
org.apache.sqoop packages and most of the code appears to include the
com.cloudera packages and not the org.apache packages. While in the
Hi...
1st of all, and I speaking about myself here, I believe this is
partially my fault cause I am one of the mentors of Sqoop and I should have
spotted such thing before moving the vote to general@
I totally agree with Alex, more specifically I believe this is easy to
solve.
There is no
On 02/28/2012 01:46 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
Hi...
1st of all, and I speaking about myself here, I believe this is
partially my fault cause I am one of the mentors of Sqoop and I should have
spotted such thing before moving the vote to general@
I totally agree with Alex, more
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Ate Douma a...@douma.nu wrote:
On 02/28/2012 01:46 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
Hi...
1st of all, and I speaking about myself here, I believe this is
partially my fault cause I am one of the mentors of Sqoop and I should
have
spotted such thing
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din
nour.moham...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Ate Douma a...@douma.nu wrote:
On 02/28/2012 01:46 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
Hi...
1st of all, and I speaking about myself here, I believe this is
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
Cloudera's compatibility issues are not our problem. These packages need to
go.
Citation needed. Without a written policy to that effect
On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
Cloudera's compatibility issues are not our problem. These packages need to
go.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
I'm not sure
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com
wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
I agree that this potentially could be an issue, but whether it's a
technical requirement is up to the team who's doing the work. If
Apache feels
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
I agree that this potentially could be an issue, but whether it's a
On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:59 AM,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com
wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:06 AM,
On 02/28/2012 12:59 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
That namespace is a mark of Cloudera.
Package names are not generally considered to be trademarks.
Doug
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For
On 02/28/2012 06:01 AM, Ate Douma wrote:
And specifically as this seems to concern compatibility support for
Cloudera own API, only needed for Cloudera customers.
Sqoop was an Apache-licensed open source project at Github before it
came to Apache. It's thus safe to assume that it had users who
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com
wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:06 AM,
On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com
wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com
wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:16
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com
wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:57
On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com
wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com
wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:16 AM,
On Feb 28, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com
wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com
wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012,
On Feb 28, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
We should also give Arvind and the rest of the Sqoop community some
indication how to proceed, given the voting period is completed.
A concern has been raised by IPMC members and an effort is being made to
garner consensus. The voting
Note that API is not just method signatures but includes all aspects
of implementation such as class hierarchies, type compatibility,
static and non-static state etc.
I think that it's good to have binary compatibility with Cloudera's old
bindings. I still don't see why it's a requirement
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Alan D. Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
We should also give Arvind and the rest of the Sqoop community some
indication how to proceed, given the voting period is completed.
A concern has been raised
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
Note that API is not just method signatures but includes all aspects
of implementation such as class hierarchies, type compatibility,
static and non-static state etc.
I think that it's good to have binary compatibility
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Alan D. Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com
wrote:
Opps, I didn't see that Arvind concluded the vote. I still stand by my
opinion that there
are some things that are not solely up to the
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Alan D. Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com
wrote:
Opps, I didn't see that Arvind concluded the vote. I still
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Alan D. Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com
wrote:
Opps, I didn't see that Arvind concluded the vote. I still
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Arvind Prabhakar arv...@apache.orgwrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Arvind Prabhakar arv...@apache.orgwrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Patrick Hunt
Hi all...
I don't think that anyone here is trying to underestimate or saying
anything bad about Sqoop in general or about Cloudera people in particular.
And I agree on the point that this vote was more about evaluating whether
the Sqoop community succeeded to adapt to the Apache way of doing
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
