Hi Doug, I didn't read your email until this morning, but I spent time overnight thinking about the Apache Way and reached similar conclusions. While tooling is broader in scope than a single code change, it is a technical choice that we all have to live with.
More importantly, "Community over Code" would suggest that if only slightly less than 50% of the community is uncomfortable with adding Python to the mix which is the Hadoop stack, then we probably shouldn't do it, regardless of the technical merits. Therefore, I withdraw the question. We will search for other means of cleaning up the shellscript problem and making all functionality work with parity in the Windows world. I am quite partial to Allen Wittenauer's suggestion in HADOOP-9082<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9082?focusedCommentId=13507163&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13507163> that the scripts should be greatly simplified before dealing with the cross-platform question. It is in many respects silly to have so much functionality "on the side" instead of dealing with it forthrightly in core code. In that spirit, I am also -1 on burying the same complexity in maven plug-ins, which after all just adds another couple layers of complexity, and limits the number of people who understand it, as well. Thanks to all who voted and contributed to the discussion. Best regards, --Matt On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Doug Cutting <cutt...@apache.org> wrote: > Hadoop's bylaws do draw finer distinctions than the Apache voting > guidelines document, but we follow the same general principles that > are described there. > > As I understand it, the rationale for using consensus for code is that > everyone needs to agree on everything in the codebase or we've > disenfranchised some. We share a single code repository and we need > to all agree on what goes into it. A release does not require > majority since if someone doesn't agree on the timing of a release > they can choose to make another at a different time, but every change > that goes into each release requires consensus. We also require > consensus for committers and PMC member votes so that we have a group > that's coherent and is able to reach consensus on code changes. > > Re-writing bash scripts in Python is neither a release nor other > procedural issue. It involves changes to the software we maintain and > seems to fall clearly into the "code change" category. > > If you disagree then perhaps you'd like to propose a change to the > bylaws so that scripts have different rules than other kinds of > software, but I don't yet see the rationale for such a change. > > Doug > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Matt Foley <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > > No, but it speaks to whether the Hadoop bylaws can extend the Apache > voting > > procedures and draw finer distinctions. For example, the Apache voting > > procedures only identify 3 types of votable issue, while the Hadoop > bylaws > > identify 9 types of votable issues. > > > > If we were forced to fit "development tools" into one of the three > > categories cited by the Apache voting procedures, it would be fitting a > > square peg in a round hole. Since we can instead look at the 9 > categories > > provided by the Hadoop bylaws, we can acknowledge that "development > tools" > > was an overlooked category. But in my opinion it certainly doesn't fit > > into the "code change" category. Tooling is a meta-issue regarding HOW > we > > do what needs to be done. In this case, whether we allow a > > platform-independent solution, or force contributors to maintain parallel > > scripts in multiple platform-specific languages for no reason. > > > > --Matt > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Doug Cutting <cutt...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Matt Foley <mfo...@hortonworks.com> > wrote: > >> > The apache voting process contradicts the Hadoop bylaws: > >> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html says that only PMC > members > >> can > >> > make binding votes on code modification issues, but > >> > http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html says that Committers can make > >> binding > >> > votes on them. Does that mean the Hadoop bylaws have to change? > >> > >> This may be a little atypical but I don't see any harm. The Hadoop > >> PMC is willing to respect the veto of any committer as binding. I'd > >> worry more if we tried to reduce vetoes to a subset of the PMC than > >> extend it to a superset. > >> > >> Do you think this is problematic? > >> > >> Doug > >> >
