I am interested in contributing to the bookkeeper code. It would be nice to have a community around it. An incubator proposal sounds good, but the zk-subproject should also work well. It woud be nice to separate out hedwig and bookkeeper since they have quite different functionality.
-dhruba On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Mahadev Konar <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >> > >> > >> > > > -- Connect to me at http://www.facebook.com/dhruba
