On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think the answer to where things should go depends on two main factors: > > 1) Which project(s) does it benefit the most? (does it benefit > Accumulo users more to have another way to access Accumulo, or does it > benefit Hive users more to have another database to query from?), and > 2) Who is going to be responsible for maintaining it? > > The first question is probably a very subjective one, so I expect the > second to play a bigger role. Perhaps the discussion should involve > both communities to consolidate potentially multiple efforts? > I think the second question also comes down to community-specific subjectivity. For some projects, being in core doesn't imply a different level of maintenance than being in contrib or being in an outside repo (see the discussion from this summer around Trevni in Hive) -- if no one uses something it doesn't get maintained. If that happens long enough, it gets cut. I don't think we should use that lack of maintenance assurance to mean that we keep things in Accumulo just because we care about them being maintained. I tend to favor Jon's reasoning[1], which mostly focuses on which API is more likely to change in a way that requires maintenance. In the case of things like Flume, Hive, or Pig, I think the level of familiarity needed to maintain an integration point requires more knowledge of the non-Accumulo side. If the answer is that it's all case-by-case, then I can just put wording to that end in the contrib document. I just want to make sure people have some idea of our reasoning as a project without reading our mail archive or jiras. [1]: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-dev/201307.mbox/%3CCAAha9a23xdnJOQyZBT7SOfDtb-Eg2Y2vUJ%2BVH3Eh3AA-rF0sbQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E -- Sean
