With all due respect Suresh, the below is awful nonsense. I say up front what my motivation is -- avoiding vendor branding in Apache product -- yet you would put upon me another motivation altogether: creating 'unneeded controversy' *. This then becomes a launch pad for a bunch of non-sequiturs:
1. That I am out to disparage someones 'good work'. 2, Color is neutral. 3. Devs can choose any color they want in a software package. 4. Bigtop/Oozie, other Apache projects altogether, have Cloudera references in their UI (?) so the take away is HWX can do it too, or, because I raise an issue here -- it is only legit if I do it too in all projects under the Apache rainbow? Please be more civil in your communique. Your attack dog 'flair' has likely ruined my little survey. No one is going to comment afraid that they'll get their heads cut off. Thanks, St.Ack * I have better things to be doing that 'controversy'. In fact this kind of 'controversy' makes me nauseous and question why contrib in these parts at all. I'd trying out the tip of branch-2.3 to try and give feedback before the lads cut an RC when I ran into the items raised here. On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Suresh Srinivas <sur...@hortonworks.com>wrote: > Stack, > > This seems to me like coloring the good work someone has done with an > unneeded controversy. Color is a matter of choice. The person who did the > fine work had all the rights to choose what he sees as fit. I also think > that while you might think "green" as vendor color, most people probably > will not make the connection you are making or will not care either. > > Now what, shades of green, blue, aqua green, orange as colors that are not > allowed for web UI? Would you recommend changing the color if another > vendor pops up with color scheme similar to the Hadoop web UI? > > Have you looked at the bigtop main page and all the references to Cloudera > Jenkins? It does not bother me and I believe it should not either. These > are the kind of issues that in the end wastes time and energy! Have you > looked at Oozie and are you going to open a jira to change that as well? > > We are better off focusing on things that are productive and important work > related to the project than stirring up unneeded controversy. > > Regards, > Suresh > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > What do others think? See here if you do not have access: > > > http://goo.gl/j05wkf > > > > > > It might be a shade darker but I can't tell for sure. It looks way too > > > close to me. > > > > > > I'd think we'd intentionally go out of our way to put a vendor's > > signature > > > color on our Apache software. > > > > > > Asking here before I file a blocker in case it just a case of color > > > blindness on my part. > > > > > > > > Slightly related, I just ran into this looking back at my 2.2.0 download: > > > > [stack@c2020 hadoop-2.2.0]$ ./bin/hadoop version > > Hadoop 2.2.0 > > Subversion https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/common -r 1529768 > > Compiled by hortonmu on 2013-10-07T06:28Z > > ... > > > > Does the apache binary have to be compiled by 'hortonmu'? Could it be > > compiled by 'arun', or 'apachemu'? > > > > Thanks, > > St.Ack > > > > > > -- > http://hortonworks.com/download/ > > -- > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately > and delete it from your system. Thank You. >
