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
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
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 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
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 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 8:45 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
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 3:54 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
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
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 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 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
] - 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
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
33 matches
Mail list logo
