On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Arvind Prabhakar <arv...@apache.org>wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <a...@toolazydogs.com> > 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] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/sqoop/branches/sqoop2/ > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-365 > > > > > 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. Alex
