On 9 March 2012 05:42, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 12:43:47AM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Doug Cutting
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 03/07/2012 11:31 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>> > > > N
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 12:43:47AM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Doug Cutting
> wrote:
> >
> > > On 03/07/2012 11:31 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> > > > Not trying to beat a dead horse to death here but I'm s
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 12:43:47AM +0200, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
>
> > On 03/07/2012 11:31 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> > > Not trying to beat a dead horse to death here but I'm starting to think
> > > that we might have had some basis to these p
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> On 03/07/2012 11:31 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> > Not trying to beat a dead horse to death here but I'm starting to think
> > that we might have had some basis to these package namespace issues. The
> > recent private Lucene-Commons threads sh
On 03/07/2012 11:31 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Not trying to beat a dead horse to death here but I'm starting to think
> that we might have had some basis to these package namespace issues. The
> recent private Lucene-Commons threads show what can happen if this policy
> is that hmmm liberal. Don't
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Alex Karasulu
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Benson Margulies <
>> bi
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Alex Karasulu
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Benson Margulies <
> bimargul...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Leo, are you out there?
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Benson Margulies
>> wrote:
>> > Leo, are you out there?
>>
>> Hmm? Oh, this again...
>>
>> Having company names or trademarks in java namespaces is a pre
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
> > Leo, are you out there?
>
> Hmm? Oh, this again...
>
> Having company names or trademarks in java namespaces is a pretty
> stupid convention. It gets us mess like this...
>
> There
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Leo, are you out there?
Hmm? Oh, this again...
Having company names or trademarks in java namespaces is a pretty
stupid convention. It gets us mess like this...
There is no policy that incubating java projects must rename to use an
org.
Thanks Greg. The vote was closed Feb 27, 2012. The tally of votes was
sent out shortly thereafter and can be found at:
http://markmail.org/message/vnti4j7kailm4hxb
Since consensus on graduation of Sqoop from Apache Incubator has been
reached, I will proceed to the next step of submitting the reso
ubator.apache.org
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] - Packages renaming and backward compatibility
> (was: Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator)
> >
> > On Feb 29, 2012 8:34 AM, "Ian Dickinson"
The vote closed a day or two ago, passing with all +1's. (fyi)
On Feb 29, 2012 2:48 PM, "Benson Margulies" wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Niall Pemberton
> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > Niall
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Arvind Prabhakar
> wrote:
> >> This is a call for vo
+1
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> +1
>
> Niall
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
>> This is a call for vote to graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator.
>>
>> Sqoop entered Incubator in June of 2011. Since then it has added three
>> new c
+1
Niall
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
> This is a call for vote to graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator.
>
> Sqoop entered Incubator in June of 2011. Since then it has added three
> new committers from diverse organizations, added two new PPMC members,
> and m
Hi Arun,
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>
> On Feb 29, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
>
>> Arvind,
>>
>> (Sorry, I missed this discussion.)
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
>>
>>> Please see [1] for details on why the code is like this.
On Feb 29, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> Arvind,
>
> (Sorry, I missed this discussion.)
>
> On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
>
>> Please see [1] for details on why the code is like this. The short
>> summary is that binary compatibility requires us to respect a
Arvind,
(Sorry, I missed this discussion.)
On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
> Please see [1] for details on why the code is like this. The short
> summary is that binary compatibility requires us to respect all
> extension points within the code.
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apach
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Alex Karasulu
>
>> Sqoop was ASL licensed and had an open following long before it
>> was accepted for incubation to Apache. The community is trying
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> On 02/29/2012 06:19 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> >> The class/package names are merely not being deleted. Presuming that the
> >> > original code was part of the inceptional code grant, one can
> conclude that
> >> > the company in question doe
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> On 02/29/2012 01:33 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> > 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
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
> On 02/29/2012 02:45 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> On Feb 29, 2012 8:07 AM, "Alex Karasulu" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
They remain.
Keeping them is the right thing for our commun
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Alex Karasulu
> wrote:
> >
> > The discussion pertains to the presence of com.cloudera packages in the
> > source code of a podling for the sake of backwards compatibility with
> > Cloudera products.
>
> Alex
On 02/29/2012 06:19 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>> The class/package names are merely not being deleted. Presuming that the
>> > original code was part of the inceptional code grant, one can conclude that
>> > the company in question doesn't mind their namespace being used by ASF
>> > projects *for th
On 02/29/2012 01:33 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> 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.
This is not a trademark issue. Package names ar
t; From: Greg Stein
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] - Packages renaming and backward compatibility (was:
> Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator)
>
> On Feb 29, 2012 8:34 AM, "
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> As another point of reference, there is at least one case I'm aware of
> where
> we HAD to put some code developed at Apache into non-org.apache namespace
> in
> order for the code to work. This was taken up on legal discuss and, at
> the
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
> The discussion pertains to the presence of com.cloudera packages in the
> source code of a podling for the sake of backwards compatibility with
> Cloudera products.
Alex this is an incorrect summary of the facts, similar to the FUD you
tri
As another point of reference, there is at least one case I'm aware of where
we HAD to put some code developed at Apache into non-org.apache namespace in
order for the code to work. This was taken up on legal discuss and, at the
time, no issues about doing so were raised.
See:
http://s.apach
On 29 February 2012 15:39, Ate Douma wrote:
> On 02/29/2012 03:52 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
...
> I would propose that an ASF project SHOULD not use 3rd party namespaces,
> unless there is a very strong and logical requirement to do so.
> I'm explicitly not using the term MUST here.
+1
When I champ
On 02/29/2012 03:52 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
On 02/29/2012 02:45 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Feb 29, 2012 8:07 AM, "Alex Karasulu" wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
...
They remain.
Keeping them is the right thing for our community and product. That is
our
determination, a
On 02/29/2012 02:45 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Feb 29, 2012 8:07 AM, "Alex Karasulu" wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
...
They remain.
Keeping them is the right thing for our community and product. That is
our
determination, and is our Right.
Sorry but I don't th
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I don't think it's a good question. I think that it is typical of the
> sort of hypothetical question which leads to heaps of scorn from Sam.
>
>
Please! Don't invoke Sam :).
Jokes aside take a look the my last two posts on the original t
Seems we're continuing the discussion in both threads now. More inline ...
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Ian Dickinson wrote:
> On 29/02/12 13:07, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>
>> There is no legal (trademark or copyright) problem that I'm aware of.
>>> There
>>> is no technical proble
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Feb 29, 2012 8:45 AM, "Alex Karasulu" wrote:
> >...
> > >
> > > OK do we have the right to create any kind of package or class under
> > > com.cloudera (or any other companies packages)?
> > >
> >
> > I'd like to approach it by answering th
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Feb 29, 2012 8:07 AM, "Alex Karasulu" wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >...
> > > They remain.
> > >
> > > Keeping them is the right thing for our community and product. That is
> our
> > > determination,
On Feb 29, 2012 8:34 AM, "Ian Dickinson" wrote:
>
> On 29/02/12 10:02, Mohammad Nour El-Din 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 w
I don't think it's a good question. I think that it is typical of the
sort of hypothetical question which leads to heaps of scorn from Sam.
I can imagine circumstances where it would make some sense, and some
cases where it would be evidence of a serious problem in a TLP.
The Foundation is suppos
Hi Alex
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Alex Karasulu
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> >> On Feb 29, 2012 4:15 AM, "Alex Karasulu" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Daniel Kulp
Hi...
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Alex Karasulu
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> >> Has nothing to do with incubation. You're talking about Foundation-wide
> >> policy. You cannot impose differe
On Feb 29, 2012 8:45 AM, "Alex Karasulu" wrote:
>...
> >
> > OK do we have the right to create any kind of package or class under
> > com.cloudera (or any other companies packages)?
> >
>
> I'd like to approach it by answering this question. Because if we look at
> it like this then we'll start se
On Feb 29, 2012 8:31 AM, "Mohammad Nour El-Din"
wrote:
>
> Hi Greg...
>
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
> > > I gave it more thought and IMO, I think we should raise the issue to
the
> > > Board to get to some results,
> >
> > Raise what issue? I have not seen a statemen
I'd like the address this and Greg's other email but let's move this over
to the other discussion thread so this one can close and Scoop can continue
forward.
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Ian Dickinson wrote:
> On 29/02/12 13:07, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>
>> There is no legal (tra
On Feb 29, 2012 8:07 AM, "Alex Karasulu" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
> > They remain.
> >
> > Keeping them is the right thing for our community and product. That is
our
> > determination, and is our Right.
> >
> >
> Sorry but I don't think that's right.
Ple
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> 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
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din <
nour.moham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Alex Karasulu
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> > > Has nothing to do with incubation. You're talking about Foundation-wide
> > > polic
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> On Feb 29, 2012 4:15 AM, "Alex Karasulu" wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 1:13:30 AM Mohammad Nour El-
On 29/02/12 13:07, Alex Karasulu wrote:
[snip]
There is no legal (trademark or copyright) problem that I'm aware of. There
is no technical problem that I'm aware of.
OK do we have the right to create any kind of package or class under
com.cloudera (or any other companies packages)?
This is a
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > 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 se
On 29/02/12 10:02, Mohammad Nour El-Din 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
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> 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
Hi Greg...
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Feb 29, 2012 7:32 AM, "Mohammad Nour El-Din"
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Greg...
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >...
> > > They remain.
> > >
> > > Keeping them is the right thing for our community and pro
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> strictly -1 for forcing a name change on graduation.
>
>
Maybe we have some confusion here. No one is talking about changing the
name of the podling.
The discussion pertains to the presence of com.cloudera packages in the
source code of a p
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Feb 29, 2012 4:15 AM, "Alex Karasulu" wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 1:13:30 AM Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
> > > > Hi Daniel...
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 29,
On Feb 29, 2012 7:32 AM, "Mohammad Nour El-Din"
wrote:
>
> Hi Greg...
>
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
> > They remain.
> >
> > Keeping them is the right thing for our community and product. That is
our
> > determination, and is our Right.
> >
>
> That is what we are tr
gt; From: Greg Stein
>> 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
t: 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
Yes I did, and thanks for clarification :), and please read my as well :).
Thanks.
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> 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 o
Hi Greg...
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Feb 29, 2012 4:15 AM, "Alex Karasulu" wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 1:13:30 AM Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
> > > > Hi Daniel...
> > > >
> > > > On W
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 E
On Feb 28, 2012 9:02 AM, "Ate Douma" wrote:
>...
> That sounds reasonable and hopefully easy to do (if not this case might
even be more worrisome then).
> I'm not really sure though if Apache Extras is an appropriate location
either. I think Apache Extras intends to convey an affiliation with the
On Feb 29, 2012 4:15 AM, "Alex Karasulu" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Daniel Kulp 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 wrote:
> > > > We had a very similar di
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
n
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din
> 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 p
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Daniel Kulp 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 wrote:
> > > We had a very similar discussion about the back word compatibility
> > > classes/package
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 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
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din
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 *mu
Hi Daniel...
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Daniel Kulp 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
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/tru
Hi all...
I don't think that anyone here is trying to underestimate or saying
anything bad about Sqoop in general or about Cloudera people in particular.
And I agree on the point that this vote was more about evaluating whether
the Sqoop community succeeded to adapt to the Apache way of doing
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Alex Karasulu
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Arvind Prabhakar >wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jukka Zitting >
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jukka Zitting
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Alan D.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jukka Zitting
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
> wrote:
> >>> Opps, I didn't see that Arvind concluded
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
> wrote:
> >> Opps, I didn't see that Arvind concluded the vote. I still stand by my
> opinion that there
> >> are some thi
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
>> wrote:
>>> Opps, I didn't see that Arvind concluded the vote. I still stand by my
>>> opinion that there
>>> are some th
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
> wrote:
>> Opps, I didn't see that Arvind concluded the vote. I still stand by my
>> opinion that there
>> are some things that are not solely up to the people that are doing the
>>
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>>> Note that API is not just method signatures but includes all aspects
>>> of implementation such as class hierarchies, type compatibility,
>>> static and non-static state etc.
>>
>> I think that it's good to have binary compatibility with Cl
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Feb 28, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>>> We should also give Arvind and the rest of the Sqoop community some
>>> indication how to proceed, given the voting period is completed.
>>
>> A concern has been raised by IPMC m
>> Note that API is not just method signatures but includes all aspects
>> of implementation such as class hierarchies, type compatibility,
>> static and non-static state etc.
>
> I think that it's good to have binary compatibility with Cloudera's old
> bindings. I still don't see why it's a req
On Feb 28, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> We should also give Arvind and the rest of the Sqoop community some
>> indication how to proceed, given the voting period is completed.
>
> A concern has been raised by IPMC members and an effort is being made to
> garner consensus. The v
On Feb 28, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>> wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Patrick
On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>> wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> O
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>> wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>> wrote:
>>> On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Jukka Zitting
wrote:
On 02/28/2012 06:01 AM, Ate Douma wrote:
> And specifically as this seems to concern compatibility support for
> Cloudera own API, only needed for Cloudera customers.
Sqoop was an Apache-licensed open source project at Github before it
came to Apache. It's thus safe to assume that it had users wh
On 02/28/2012 12:59 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> That namespace is a mark of Cloudera.
Package names are not generally considered to be trademarks.
Doug
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For addit
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>> wrote:
>>> On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Jukka Zitting
wrote:
>>
On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Jukka Zitting
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Alex Karasulu
wrote:
>> I'm
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Alex Karasulu
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> >> I agree that this potentially could be an issue, but whether it's a
> >> technical requirement is up to the team who's do
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>> I agree that this potentially could be an issue, but whether it's a
>> technical requirement is up to the team who's doing the work. If
>> Apache feels that there is a requirement that
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
> wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Jukka Zitting
> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Alex Karasulu
> wrote:
> > I
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Jukka Zitting
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> I'm not sure that JSR specs are the same as old Cloudera code. JMHO
On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Jukka Zitting
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>> Cloudera's compatibility issues are not our problem. These packages need to
>>> go.
>>
>> Citation needed. Without a written
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>> Cloudera's compatibility issues are not our problem. These packages need to
>> go.
>
> Citation needed. Without a written policy to that effect these things
> are up for each project t
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din <
nour.moham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
>
> > On 02/28/2012 01:46 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
> >
> >> Hi...
> >>
> >>1st of all, and I speaking about myself here, I believe this is
> >> pa
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
> On 02/28/2012 01:46 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
>
>> Hi...
>>
>>1st of all, and I speaking about myself here, I believe this is
>> partially my fault cause I am one of the mentors of Sqoop and I should
>> have
>> spotted such thing befor
On 02/28/2012 01:46 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
Hi...
1st of all, and I speaking about myself here, I believe this is
partially my fault cause I am one of the mentors of Sqoop and I should have
spotted such thing before moving the vote to general@
I totally agree with Alex, more specifi
Hi...
1st of all, and I speaking about myself here, I believe this is
partially my fault cause I am one of the mentors of Sqoop and I should have
spotted such thing before moving the vote to general@
I totally agree with Alex, more specifically I believe this is easy to
solve.
There is no pro
Good catch
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Alan Gates wrote:
> The source code in Sqoop still exists in both com.cloudera.sqoop and
> org.apache.sqoop packages and most of the code appears to include the
> com.cloudera packages and not the org.apache packages. While in the
> incubator this see
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
