strictly -1 for forcing a name change on graduation. That would just cause additional overhead without any benefit.
LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 1:15 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] - Packages renaming and backward compatibility (was: > Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator) > > Has nothing to do with incubation. You're talking about Foundation-wide > policy. You cannot impose different naming rules on podlings, than what is > imposed on TLPs. Please see my response in the original thread. You need a > Board resolution and rationale. > > -g > On Feb 29, 2012 5:03 AM, "Mohammad Nour El-Din" > <nour.moham...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I don't see that this getting to any clear end yet. So I suggest that > we >> take this from a Sqoop instance to be a discussion on rules them selves. >> >> I would like to start a [VOTE] about whether it is a *must* for podlings to >> rename all packages before being a TLP or not over keeping the old package >> names for backward compatibility. What ever the consensus going to be built >> we definitely need to update the Incubator documents to clear this kind of >> issue. But before starting the vote I would like to consider others' >> opinions. >> >> Thoughts ? >> >> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org >> >wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> > wrote: >> > >> > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din >> > > <nour.moham...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > On the other hand, I totally respect that Cloudera's > interest to >> > support >> > > > their customers and provide backword compatibility, but this > is *not* >> > the >> > > > point at all, the point is this *should* not, and even allow > me to >> say >> > > this >> > > > is *must* not be the problem of Apache, and yes I agree with > the >> > opinion >> > > > that this is a matter to be decided by Sqoop team but not to > make >> > > Apache's >> > > > problem. So also let not get more into this!!! >> > > >> > > Or course this is Apache's problem. You can't have your > cake and eat >> > > it too. If you accept code for a project you accept the community > as >> > > well. Say Apache accepts a project like Open Office, should we > ignore >> > > the existing community and not concern ourselves with backward >> > > compatibility for that project as well, because the original code >> > > wasn't birthed at Apache? >> > > >> > >> > That's a very slippery slope. Maybe some projects get way too much > leeway >> > because of the big flashing lights. Regardless of how big the press >> > headlines are all projects should be held to the same standard. >> > >> > No project should be allowed to graduate without solving all issues >> > pertaining to marks. It's a failure of the incubator in the past > for >> > allowing other projects to do so. I'm shocked it was allowed. >> > >> > -- >> > Best Regards, >> > -- Alex >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Thanks >> - Mohammad Nour >> ---- >> "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep > moving" >> - Albert Einstein >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
