Hi all, just to circle back on this again, it seems that based on the discussion in the general incubator mailing list that the consensus still is that we will keep the datafu.* package naming convention. This makes sense to me. Let me know if there are any objections :)
FYI I've updated the changes.md file with all the changes since the last release (1.2.0). The last major thing left for release that I know if is updating the website instructions based on recent changes (like Hadoop 2.0 compatibility). I'll get to this soon. -Matt On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Matthew Hayes < matthew.terence.ha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sure I will go ahead and do that. > > -Matt > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <r...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Matthew Hayes >> <matthew.terence.ha...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Will do! Regarding the non-ASF package names, we discussed this quite >> > awhile back when we first entered incubation. If I recall the >> discussion >> > correctly, the consensus at that time was that it would be too >> burdensome >> > for users to update all their package references in their Pig scripts. >> I >> > don't think we've discussed the issue since then. What is the general >> > practice for migrating to the org.apache.* namespace? >> >> I'm dealing with a few other podlings who are in a similar situation >> and it seems >> that the current consensus on general@ is that the change needs to occur >> unless there's a big reason for it not to. Now, in DataFu's case it is a >> little >> bit easier to argue that there are no corporate branding implications wrt. >> the old package names, but I think we still need to clarify that on >> general@ >> >> Would you mind starting a discussion? My goal here is to make sure you >> guys >> graduate sometime soon ;-) >> >> Thanks, >> Roman. >> > >
