incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arvind Prabhakar <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator
Date Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:59:50 GMT
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. 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 work.  Complete
>> >>> migration to the the org.apache.* package space is one of them.
>> >>
>> >> No worries. I respect your opinion and if Apache feels that this is
>> >> important enough to make explicit then certainly Sqoop should make the
>> >> changes. Short of that I don't see why we should hold Sqoop to a
>> >> higher standard than is expected of other Apache projects. (that's
>> >> _my_ opinion ;-) )
>> >
>> > Right.
>> >
>> > Basically the graduation vote by the IPMC is about determining whether
>> > the PPMC is capable of conducting itself according to the Apache Way
>> > and Apache policies on it's own. I didn't have time to look deeper
>> > into Sqoop yet, but all the +1s in this vote suggest that the Sqoop
>> > PPMC is ready to take on that responsibility. Along with that
>> > responsibility comes the right to make value judgements on topics like
>> > this where existing policies aren't clearly spelled out.
>> 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]
>> >
>> > Personally I think we should let the vote result stand with guidance
>> > to the new Sqoop PMC to discuss the matter with the branding team at
>> > trademarks@ to seek Apache-wide consensus. I encourage anyone who
>> > feels strongly about this (the point being made clearly has some
>> > merit) make their case to trademarks@ as it's IMHO not really the task
>> > of the Incubator to be forming new policy on this, especially with all
>> > the recent talk about scaling down the ambitions of the IPMC.
>> This sounds like a great solution that addresses the concern and does
>> not unduly penalize the Sqoop project.
> You really should not be seeing this as being penalized. It's not about
> that.

The penalty I reference is for the Sqoop community which will be
impacted by incompatible changes you are suggesting.

I appreciate your feedback, and request that you keep the discussion
relavant to the issue at hand without making references like "Cloudera
people come out of the woodwork". Please understand that we interact
with Apache as individual contributors and committers. Such references
undermine our efforts and are honestly insulting to everyone who has
spent hours on delivering the product.

Arvind Prabhakar

> Alex

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message