On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <jzimmer...@netflix.com> wrote: > I appreciate the desire to go through Incubator. Maybe our concerns are > out-dated. I'll circulate this around Netflix and get some responses.
whirr recently graduated to tlp status, see flume, sqoop, bigtop, mrunit, s4 for examples of projects that I'm currently mentoring and are doing quite well (granted I'm not the only mentor. ;-) ). All short of s4 and flume have had successful releases in the incubator with minimal muss/fuss. (s4 is quite new and flume is about to put out a release). > WRT committer status, I don't see how it can work without us being > committers to Curator. If we're not committers, we'll need to fork it > internally and I've already gotten a lot of negative feedback on that > (there are a lot of former Yahoo-ers here). What Doug is suggesting is that while you wouldn't be able to commit yourselves (to start with) one of the existing zk committers would have to review/commit for you. Granted it's not an optimal situation. That's why incubator/subproj are better imo. Patrick > > On 12/28/11 10:02 AM, "Patrick Hunt" <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > >>I wanted to share this section of my recent report to the board (I've >>also gotten permission to share the board's response) >> >>> A discussion is currently under way regarding the possibility of> >>>merging the recently open sourced "Curator" source base from> Netflix. >>>These are client implementations of ZooKeeper "recipes"> (e.g. >>>leadership election, group membership, etc...) which simplify> the act >>>of using ZooKeeper in client side applications.>> The authors of Curator >>>are unwilling to join the incubator, this is> based on their past >>>experience as well as some of the ongoing issues> they are seeing wrt >>>projects entering the incubator. They have> expressed a preference to >>>come in either as a subproject or as a> separate release artifact of the >>>TLP. >> >>to which the board responded: >> >>Doug Cutting (chairman): >>+ Long-term, do you think that Curator will have an >>+ indepdendent community from Zookeeper? If so, then it >>+ ought to enter through the Incubator. If not then the >>+ code might still enter through the incubator for >>+ resolution of IP issues, but then transfer relatively >>+ quickly to live under the Zookeeper PMC. Or the >>+ Zookeeper PMC could directly adopt the code, although >>+ you might not immediately add its committers to the >>+ project but rather have them first contribute patches >>+ through the normal process until their community merit >>+ is established. >> >>Sam Ruby: >>+ suggested that the "short form" of the incubator's IP clearance >>process would be appropriate if Zookeeper directly adopts this code. >> >>The short form can be found here: >>http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html >> >>I personally still feel that incubator is the best place for starting >>this. I have a good track record as a podling mentor and I feel >>strongly that we could quickly/successfully incubate this project and >>graduate (given there's strong leadership by the Curator committers >>themselves). >> >>Patrick >> >>On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Jordan Zimmerman >><jzimmer...@netflix.com> wrote: >>> Any other comments on this? If not, what should the next steps be? >>> >>> -JZ >>> >>> On 12/15/11 10:07 AM, "Jordan Zimmerman" <jzimmer...@netflix.com> wrote: >>> >>>>I'd be happy to have Ted as both committer and mentor. I'd be happy to >>>>have Patrick and/or as mentor as well. >>>> >>>>-JZ >>>> >>>>On 12/14/11 7:03 PM, "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@yahoo-inc.com> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Jordan, Here is some feedback. I like the proposal and it makes >>>>>>sense >>>>>> to have such a project as either sub-project or incubator. I have a >>>>>>few >>>>>> concerns, though: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1- I haven't been following closely the development of the recipes, >>>>>>but >>>>>>I >>>>>> wonder if it really makes sense to deprecate the current ones in >>>>>>favor >>>>>>of >>>>>> Curator's, or if it is a better idea to keep multiple versions in the >>>>>>case >>>>>> of duplicates. People in the community have spent time on the current >>>>>> recipes, so I don't like very much the idea of dropping the current >>>>>>recipes >>>>>> without some evidence that the community accepts it. Note that I'm >>>>>>not >>>>>> saying that deprecating is not the right thing to do, I'm simply >>>>>>saying >>>>>> that we need to make sure that the community agrees. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I agree that not deprecating is a good thing. We could mark them with >>>>>annotations that indicate that we haven't heard yet from a community of >>>>>users. If we don't hear about significant usage, then deprecation >>>>>might >>>>>be >>>>>warranted. >>>>> >>>>>2- The set of committers needs to be more diverse. Perhaps it would be >>>>>> easier to find more committers if you follow the incubation process, >>>>>>given >>>>>> that typically people sign up for committership once you post a >>>>>>proposal >>>>>> there. I wonder how many other people on this list would like to >>>>>>volunteer >>>>>> to become a committer of Curator, though. I like the project, but >>>>>> unfortunately I don't have the cycles to do it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I would volunteer. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 3- If Curator becomes a sub-project of ZooKeeper, then you need at >>>>>>least >>>>>> one mentor. Is there anyone who would like to sign up to mentor >>>>>>Curator? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Likewise. >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
