Sorry for the delay.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <vinodkv@ hortonworks.com> wrote: > > My response was to your direct association of the green color to HWX green > as if it were deliberately done. Nobody here intentionally left a vendor's > signature like you claimed. I did not do what you accuse me of above. Please gp back to the original. All is couched in 'is it me' and 'I think'. No accusations of deliberate vendor insert. That is your addition. > And to your other comment "Does the apache binary have to be compiled by > 'hortonmu'? Could it be compiled by 'arun', or 'apachemu'?" to the > message in the build. As if somebody said it has to be. > The Apache Hadoop version string should be pure, free of vendor pollution. Seems obvious to me. I could call a vote and get it written into the bylaws but seems a bit of a useless exercise? (This is now a non-issue anyways having been 'fixed'. While some chose to do histrionics's, another committer spent a few minutes and committed a patch so builds no longer have to be done on dev machines and can instead come off Apache Infra and now version string has apache infra in it instead... nice). > You know how I'd have raised this? I'd say "Hey guys, seems like the build > messages have hortonmu and that seems like an issue with our branding. Can > we fix this?". Then I or somebody could have replied "Oh, that seems > totally by mistake. Agreed, let's fix this". > > Ain't this what I did give or take a bit on the wording? > Instead, you post it in another orthogonal thread (which in itself is > making claims of causing deliberate confusion of brand), make it look like > an innocuous question asking if apache binary has to be compiled by the > specific user-name. > > Sorry. Seemed related to me at the time at least. I was trying out tip of the branch and the color made me 'sensitive' and then I tripped over the version string (Its hard to miss being up top in our UI). > I said 'unbelievable'. Sorry, I should have used 'disappointing'. This is > not the way I'd post 'concerns'. > > You should make up your mind. When you waffle on your dramatic lead-in, the 'unbelievable' becoming 'disappointing', it reads like a 'device'. Your reaction comes across as false, artificial, not genuine. Just saying... > There is a reason why brand issues are gently discussed on private lists. > And to think this thread is posted out in the open like this, it was me who > was taken aback by your oh-not-so-explicit insinuations. > I do not apologize for thinking us as a community mature enough to answer a basic "it looks like X to me, what do you lot think?" even if X might come close to the bone for some of us involved here. A simple "no, you are way off" or "you may have a point..." and variants thereof was what I was expecting (You did this up in the related issue, thanks for doing that, but IMO it would have been more effective if you'd done it in this thread...). Thanks Vinod, St.Ack
