I agree with Bobby and Andrew here. As has been said on this thread, I
think the technical issues should be addressed. Just going ahead and
doing the split will be counter productive. I am all for the project
going TLP's (sooner than later) but I think we need to work through a
plan on when/how that addresses the issues brought up by folks in the
thread.
thanks
mahadev
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> I agree with you that the DLL/CLASSPATH issues is one huge concern that
> needs to be addressed before we can really move forward with a valid
> longterm split. There is hope on the horizon for that though with some of
> the OSGI work that Tom White has been doing.
>
> Chris,
>
> I completely agree with Andrew here. There are very *REAL* technical
> issues that need to be addressed before a *CLEAN* split can happen. We
> can make a messy one, but the ramifications are far from trivial. If we
> simply go in blindly it will at a minimum take months to stabilize and get
> back to where we are now. You may be OK with that, but many of us are
> not. Simply dismissing others' concurs as invalid is not good for the
> community. Many of us, as indaviduals, have a huge vested interest in
> having a stable version of Hadoop with new features in it regularly
> released. That is why we are part of this community. It frankly baffles
> me that "community over code" can be used to dismiss concurs about an
> issue that many of us see as something that will hurt the community. I am
> +1 for the split, and I am +1 for doing it soon, but I am -1 on doing it
> without at least having a plan as to how we will tease apart the different
> pieces of Hadoop.
>
> --Bobby
>
> On 8/31/12 2:55 AM, "Andrew Purtell" <apurt...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>The end user community might disappear, and you are ok with this? I'm
>>simply astonished. Who are these people showing up to help, document, be
>>on
>>lists, whatever, if not current or prospective end users? Who the hell
>>shows up to write unit tests? Who is this "public" in public good? Looks
>>to
>>me like a small cabal of commercial concerns in this case.
>>
>>I guess the only thing we are going to agree on is that confidence in
>>Apache Hadoop project stewardship at the ASF isn't currently warranted.
>>And
>>here I thought things were going so well. Who knew this torpedo lurked
>>beneath the waters. I guess just members of the cabal. There's nothing
>>more
>>for me to say, just maybe a few hard decisions to make, depending how this
>>turns out.
>>
>>On Friday, August 31, 2012, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> On Aug 30, 2012, at 11:42 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>>>
>>> > If Apache Hadoop -- as an umbrella or sum of its parts -- isn't
>>>practical
>>> > to develop end applications or downstream projects on, the community
>>>will
>>> > disappear.
>>>
>>> Sure, the end-user community might disappear, but the point I'm trying
>>>to
>>> make is
>>> that the community is more than that. It's developers that build code
>>> together
>>> ("community over code"); it's folks who write documentation who are part
>>> of the
>>> project's committee of folks working together to develop software for
>>>the
>>> public
>>> good at this Foundation. It's folks who write unit tests as part of
>>>that.
>>> It's also people
>>> that fly by on the lists and that need help; or that may throw up a
>>>patch,
>>> or
>>> whatever. It's other members of the Apache Software Foundation that are
>>> charged with caring and giving a rip about the Foundation's projects.
>>>
>>> It's also downstream users of the software too -- they just aren't the
>>> only folks who
>>> are the community, that's all.
>>>
>>> > I don't follow your logic. I deal with the technical realities
>>> > of actually trying to use an Apache Hadoop distribution, the pieces
>>> > released as source from the ASF, directly in production, and your
>>> position
>>> > is dismissive if not hostile to my concerns as an end user.
>>>
>>> Sorry I wasn't trying to be dismissive. But at the same time I want to
>>> suggest that
>>> the community is broader than simply the technical folks who use the
>>> project.
>>>
>>> > What
>>> > "community" do you mean then? Vendors? Academics? People who like to
>>> tinker
>>> > with things they can't actually use?
>>>
>>> Yeah the community I'm talking about is the larger whole that makes up
>>> the community of the project.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > And you can't just hand waive that this will all work out if done
>>>RIGHT
>>> > NOW, especially with something as inelegant as a SVN copy.
>>>
>>> Well the project's health is something that ought to be fixed, and it
>>>ought
>>> to be done under a timeline. *right now* isn't probably going to be a
>>> reality.
>>> But I am doing my job as a member of the Foundation in helping to
>>>discuss,
>>> further root out, and educate the folks around here as to the way that
>>> projects
>>> work at the Foundation.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>>> Senior Computer Scientist
>>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
>>> Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov <javascript:;>
>>> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
>>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Best regards,
>>
>> - Andy
>>
>>Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>>(via Tom White)
>
