-1 here. On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:38 AM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: > 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 >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
