Wiki FAQ started here: http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/ProjectSplit
Todd, left a note there for you to add in a link to a git-history-fixer-script Jira when the time comes. If folks find more docs that will need updating, please add them to the list at the end of the FAQ. We still need to fill in the exact steps that developers will need to perform to change their workspaces once this change is made. Nige On Jan 17, 2011, at 9:04 PM, Nigel Daley wrote: > Good questions. Keep them coming! I'll compile a list so we can start an > FAQ on this. > >> # Is project split a goal for hadoop in the future (even though we are not >> ready yet?). If it is, then putting projects back together might result in >> tight dependencies between the project. Ho do we avoid it? > > > Note, we're not putting them back together. This is NOT a cmd-Z (ctrl-Z) on > the project split. It's putting them back under one trunk, but as separate > projects underneath that. IMO this is a relatively small change in the > universe of undo-the-project-split possibilities. > >> # The committer list for each of the sub project today is different. How do >> we reconcile them? > > I'd like to keep that issue out of this change if at all possible. I > recommend for now we keep the status quo. Thus, even though all committers > may technically have permission to commit to all 3 project trees (can someone > confirm that?), we would need to rely on the honor system that committers > will only commit to their project trees. > > Cheers, > Nige > > On Jan 14, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote: > >> I like the idea of merging projects together. It save a lot of time. >> >> However, I would like to see a detailed proposal on how this will be done >> and discussions on it, before moving forward on this. If this work is done, >> need clear messages to the developers on what has changed, and how >> development process is affected. These details were missing when project >> split was done, causing great deal of confusion and pain. >> >> We should also address the following: >> # Is project split a goal for hadoop in the future (even though we are not >> ready yet?). If it is, then putting projects back together might result in >> tight dependencies between the project. Ho do we avoid it? >> # The committer list for each of the sub project today is different. How do >> we reconcile them? >> >> >> On 1/14/11 11:53 AM, "Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze" >> <s29752-hadoopgene...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> This is a kind of an incompatible change: all the developers, QAs, release >> engineers and users have to change their local settings and scripts for this >> change. Moreover, there are documentations, web pages and existing tools >> using >> the Apache svn URLs. So it is a huge impact. I am conservative on this >> since, >> as Konstantin mentioned, we risk to get into the same mess, and it will >> create >> more work for the community. >> >> Why do we want to enforce the releases as a unit, given that the long term >> target is to release these 3 projects independently? >> >> Nicholas >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Nigel Daley <nda...@mac.com> >> To: general@hadoop.apache.org >> Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 11:21:25 AM >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Move project split down a level >> >> >> On Jan 14, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze wrote: >> >>> Hi Nigel, >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Could you elaborate your idea on how the proposed changes would help? What >>> the >>> >>> problems are being addressed? It is not clear to me. >> >> Critical in my mind was my statement: "We're a long way from releasing these >> 3 >> projects independently. Given that, they should be branched and released as >> a >> unit." This can not be enforced given the current svn layout. Other's can >> weigh >> in with additional thoughts. >> >>> You are right that the change is small but the impact is huge. We should >>> first >>> >>> understand what we are getting from the changes before doing it. >> >> What do you see as the huge impact? >> >> Nige >> >
