On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>> 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:
>> I'm not sure that JSR specs are the same as old Cloudera code. JMHO.
>
> How about phrasing it as "old Sqoop code" instead. :-)
>
> Really it's about respect for existing users and others migrating to
> Apache. It's also about respect for the people doing the work. That's
> my understanding from discussions with the team at least.
>
>> I don't see the technical requirement that this code needs to stay at Apache
>> and not Cloudera.
>
> I agree that this potentially could be an issue, but whether it's a
> technical requirement is up to the team who's doing the work. If
> Apache feels that there is a requirement that no project releases
> code/document/etc... under any package other than org.apache.* then
> that should be clearly defined and communicated. At this point my
> understanding is there is no such requirement.
public class MySQLManager
extends org.apache.sqoop.manager.MySQLManager {
public MySQLManager(final SqoopOptions opts) {
super(opts);
}
}
If all the code is like this it is absolutely ridiculous to have this at Apache
and not Cloudera.
Regards,
Alan
