I like the idea of BookKeeper/Hedwig being subprojects. thanks mahadev
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 >> >> >> >
