On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 1:13:30 AM Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote: > > Hi Daniel... > > > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: > > > We had a very similar discussion about the back word compatibility > > > classes/package names when Subversion graduated and we deemed it OK for > > > them. > > > In fact, I believe they still of org.tigris packages in their codebase > > > long > > > after graduation. See: > > > > > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/subversion/bindings/javah > > > l/src/org/ > > > > > > > > > I don't see why we would or should hold Sqoop to a different or higher > > > standard at this point. I agree with Jukka that if we, as a > foundation, > > > would like to re-address this, fine, take it to trademarks@ and start > a > > > discussion. However, from an INCUBATOR standpoint, the precedent and > > > expectations have been set. > > > > > > That's my $0.02 cents worth. > > > > Thanks a lot for this, but would you elaborate more on why this has been > > accepted ? My believe is that there is some clarification that should be > > added to documentation so it is more clear for all people in the future, > > your input on this example would help indeed. > > You could likely read the mail archives if you want all the details. > general@incubator in Nov 2009 had a thread, dev@subversion in Jan 2010 > had a > thread, and I think the graduation vote in Feb 2010 had more discussions. > > Basically, the Subversion had binary compatibility "rules" and there was no > real "legal" requirement to force a huge disruption in the community by > changing the package names. The project had a plan to deprecate > them/create > wrappers/whatever so when it was appropriate to break compatibility they > would. > > Did they remove those packages or did they remain? -- Best Regards, -- Alex
