+1 to setting up a Jenkins Job. On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since there's an opinion to create an examples repo instead of keeping > them in the base project, I'm -0 as long we CI set up so that they don't go > silently into the night as I previously state as a concern. > > Some general questions for actually doing this: do we schedule the move of > the classes out of the main project for 1.7.0? Will this other repo follow > the same development practices as the project (e.g. branch names). How will > we release these examples? > > Can someone step up to make sure all of the above are completed/addressed > and file the necessary INFRA JIRA issues? > > > David Medinets wrote: > >> +1 >> On Nov 14, 2014 11:18 AM, "Keith Turner"<ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Corey Nolet<cjno...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Josh, >>>> >>>> My worry with a contrib module is that, historically, code which goes >>>>> >>>> moves to a contrib is just one step away from the grave. >>>> >>>> You do have a good point. My hope was that this could be the beginning >>>> of >>>> our changing history so that we could begin to encourage the community >>>> to >>>> contribute their own source directly and give them an outlet for doing >>>> >>> so. >>> >>>> I understand that's also the intent of hosting open source repos under >>>> >>> ASF >>> >>>> to begin with- so I'm partial to either outcome. >>>> >>>> I think there's precedence for keeping them in core (as Christopher had >>>>> >>>> mentioned, next to examples/simple) which would benefit people >>>> externally >>>> (more "how do I do X" examples) and internally (keep devs honest about >>>> >>> how >>> >>>> our APIs are implemented). >>>> >>>> I would think that would just require keeping the repos up to date as >>>> versions change so they wouldn't get out of date and possibly releasing >>>> them w/ our other releases. >>>> >>>> >>>> Wherever they end up living, thank you Adam for the contributions! >>>> >>>> I'll 2nd that. >>> >>> For the following reasons, I think it might be nice to move existing >>> examples out of core into their own git repo(s). >>> >>> * Examples would be based on released version of Accumulo >>> * Examples could easily be built w/o building all of Accumulo >>> * As Sean said, this would keep us honest >>> * The examples poms would serve as examples more than they do when >>> part of >>> Accumulo build >>> * Less likely to use non public APIs in examples >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Josh Elser<josh.el...@gmail.com> >>>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> My worry with a contrib module is that, historically, code which goes >>>>> moves to a contrib is just one step away from the grave. I think >>>>> >>>> there's >>> >>>> precedence for keeping them in core (as Christopher had mentioned, next >>>>> >>>> to >>>> >>>>> examples/simple) which would benefit people externally (more "how do I >>>>> >>>> do >>> >>>> X" examples) and internally (keep devs honest about how our APIs are >>>>> implemented). >>>>> >>>>> Bringing the examples into the core also encourages us to grow the >>>>> community which has been stagnant with respect to new committers for >>>>> >>>> about >>>> >>>>> 9 months now. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Corey Nolet wrote: >>>>> >>>>> +1 for adding the examples to contrib. >>>>>> >>>>>> I was, myself, reading over this email wondering how a set of 11 >>>>>> >>>>> separate >>>> >>>>> examples on the use of Accumulo would fit into the core codebase- >>>>>> especially as more are contributed over tinme. I like the idea of >>>>>> >>>>> giving >>> >>>> community members an outlet for contributing examples that they've >>>>>> >>>>> built >>> >>>> so >>>>>> that we can continue to foster that without having to fit them in the >>>>>> >>>>> core >>>> >>>>> codebase. It just seems more maintainable. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Josh Elser<josh.el...@gmail.com> >>>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'll take that as you disagree with my consideration of >>>>>> >>>>> "substantial". >>> >>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mike Drob wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The proposed contribution is a collection of 11 examples. It's >>>>>>> >>>>>> clearly >>> >>>> non-trivial, which is probably enough to be considered "substantial" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Josh Elser<josh.el...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sean Busbey wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Josh Elser< >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> josh.el...@gmail.com> >>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Personally, I didn't really think that this contribution was >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the >>>> >>>>> spirit >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> of what the new codebase adoption guidelines were meant to cover. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Some extra examples which leverage what Accumulo already does >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> seems >>> >>>> more >>>>>>>>>>> like improvements for new Accumulo users than anything else. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It's content developed out side of the project list. That's >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> all >>> >>>> it >>>> >>>>> takes to >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> require the trip through the Incubator checks as far as the ASF >>>>>>>>>> guidelines >>>>>>>>>> are concerned. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> """ >>>>>>>>> From time to time, an external codebase is brought into the ASF >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> that >>>> >>>>> is >>>>>>>>> not a separate incubating project but still represents a >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> substantial >>> >>>> contribution that was not developed within the ASF's source control >>>>>>>>> system >>>>>>>>> and on our public mailing lists. >>>>>>>>> """ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not to look a gift-horse in the mouth (it is great work), but I >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> don't >>> >>>> see >>>>>>>>> these examples as "substantial". I haven't found guidelines yet >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> that >>> >>>> better >>>>>>>>> clarify the definition of "substantial". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>
