On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm sorry for not replying before. I didn't feel that the message was for > me, since it should be pretty obvious that I'm interested in those > projects. Here are some thoughts, though: > > - It would be really nice to have committers for bookkeeper/hedwig; > - It would be really nice to have independent releases for > bookkeeper/hedwig; > - It sounds like bookkeeper and hedwig don't always go together, and hdfs > is an instance in which it happens. But, hedwig builds on top of bookkeeper > (and other components), so using hedwig implies using bookkeeper. > Consequently, if we choose only one to be a main project, perhaps bookkeeper > would be a better choice; > Perhaps one could argue that bk/hedwig fall under "distributed system coordination" and therefore should be part of ZK? Or is that too much of a stretch? ;-) RESOLVED, that the Apache ZooKeeper Project be and hereby is responsible for the creation and maintenance of software related to distributed system coordination; and be it further > - I don't think we have anyone who could be a project lead for these > projects right now, so it could be a problem to split up at this point. For > this reason, a zookeeper subproject sounds like a better option compared to > incubator, unless we are able to find a project lead. > > -Flavio > > On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote: > > i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and bookkeeper a > subproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in general > about all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions, in my > mind, that we need to answer to move forward: > > 1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there be two > separate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'm > wondering if we should try to build a single dev community or two. the > relationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on bookkeeper, but > not visa-versa. i'm inclined to say we do a hedwig subproject and > include bookkeeper with it, but i don't feel strongly. > > 2) should we propose a subproject to zookeeper or to incubator? i'm a > bit more inclined to propose a zookeeper subproject simply because it > fits well with the zookeeper community, but it does introduce a bit > more overhead to the zookeeper PMC. > > 3) do we have the developer interest to make it happen in the first > place? i know we can get at least 3 initial committers from yahoo!, > but projects should be represented by multiple companies. (the goal is > at least 3.) so, is there interest in working on the project from > others? > > please comment. these are all open issues, so opinions are what i'm > looking for. if there isn't much discussion, i think that will > implicitly answer 3 :) > > thanx > ben > > > *flavio* > *junqueira* > > research scientist > > [email protected] > direct +34 93-183-8828 > > avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es > phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301 > > >
