incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] - Packages renaming and backward compatibility (was: Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator)
Date Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:25:29 GMT
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 this is an incorrect summary of the facts, similar to the FUD you
> tried to spread on the original thread which Arvind provided detail
> on.

No need to degenerate the discussion here. What's not true about the
synopsis above? Did I miss something? We're talking about the presence of
com.cloudera packages here for backwards compatibility no?

Incidentally what exactly is it that you're maintaining backwards
compatibility with? I presumed it was a Cloudera product because of the
package name. If I'm wrong let me know.

> Sqoop was ASL licensed and had an open following long before it
> was accepted for incubation to Apache. The community is trying to
> rectify the short term migration requirements against doing the right
> thing by both Apache and that community.
OK that does not in any way invalidate my summary. You're just taking
swipes for no reason. Do you honestly think I'm trying to spread FUD here?

You guys might have had to deal with a lot of nasty jealous types not
liking that Cloudera is such a success. I'd like to think there are no
people like this here but I may be naive. I'm not one of those people. I
like to see Cloudera like commercialization occur but would like some care
taken to protect the foundation. The foundation gains through your
successes as well. So please don't classify me incorrectly: I'm not one of
those types.

I read more into Scoop and I think I'm going to be a happy user soon too.

And Arvind's comments below are noted but they don't change the existing
conditions today. It just means you have a plan for the future: this is

> Arvind:
> > ... it would have
> > been easier for us[ sqoop community at apache] to drop any backward
> compatibility requirements and
> > get releases out quickly. The reason we chose to invest a lot in
> > preserving backward compatibility is for our community. Sqoop has an
> > active community that we care deeply about and we have done our best
> > to make sure continues to use Sqoop effectively. It is this thriving
> > community that was the primary reason for Sqoop to have come into the
> > incubator in the first place.
> Keep in mind also that this is a short term solution that has a longer
> term resolution (one already discussed on the other thread as well):
> Here is Arvind's response to Jukka proposing that Sqoop address the
> packaging issue post graduation:
> > Thanks Jukka. In fact, Sqoop already has a plan in place to completely
> > remove com.cloudera.* namespace from its contents via the next major
> > revision of the product. The work for that has already started and
> > currently exists under the branch sqoop2 [3], tracked by SQOOP-365
> > [4]. We hope that in a few months time, we will have feature parity in
> > this branch with the trunk, which is when we will promote it to the
> > trunk.
> >
> > [3]
> > [4]
> Patrick
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Best Regards,
-- Alex

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message