On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org> 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 to decide. Jarek's rationale sounds perfectly >> fine to me. >> >> We have plenty of projects that provide such backwards compatibility >> wrappers or otherwise put stuff in non-apache namespaces for various >> reasons. See for example [1] or [2]. >> >> [1] >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/subversion/bindings/javahl/ >> [2] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/ >> > > I agree with Jukka on this. There is no such policy. There are > examples of well established TLPs doing similar. The files are > explicitly deprecated and will be eventually removed, they are for the > convenience of users and others building on top of Sqoop who are > migrating from the original code base to Apache based packages. It > makes total sense to provide a bridge that enables that group to move > to the Apache version of the code.
I'm not sure that JSR specs are the same as old Cloudera code. JMHO. As for the Tigris/Subversion code I am surprised that they allowed it. I am surprised that the Foundation would allow the Subversion project to allow it. Normally I would be in the same boat as Jukka and Patrick in curbing the usual ad hoc requirements that IPMC members seem to tack on to votes but I think that this problem is quite a different animal, in my opinion. I don't see the technical requirement that this code needs to stay at Apache and not Cloudera. Regards, Alan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
