+1 full agreement. I think it will be a pita admin wise (due to how svn authorization is set up), so it might slow down creation of a new branch, but its worth it.
--- Ian Holsman AOL Inc ian.hols...@teamaol.com (703) 879-3128 / AIM:ianholsman it's just a technicality On Jan 14, 2011, at 2:25 AM, Eric Baldeschwieler <eri...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > +1 > > Death to the project split! Or short of that, anything to tame it. > > On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:18 PM, Nigel Daley wrote: > >> Folks, >> >> As I look more at the impact of the common/MR/HDFS project split on what and >> how we release Hadoop, I feel like the split needs an adjustment. Many >> folks I've talked to agree that the project split has caused us a splitting >> headache. I think 1 relatively small change could alleviate some of that. >> >> CURRENT SVN REPO: >> >> hadoop / [common, mapreduce, hdfs] / trunk >> hadoop / [common, mapreduce, hdfs] / branches >> >> PROPOSAL: >> >> hadoop / trunk / [common, mapreduce, hdfs] >> hadoop / branches / [common, mapreduce, hdfs] >> >> We're a long way from releasing these 3 projects independently. Given that, >> they should be branched and released as a unit. This SVN structure enforces >> that and provides a more natural place to keep a top level build and pkg >> scripts that operate across all 3 projects. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Cheers, >> Nige >
