On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 1:13:30 AM Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote: > Hi Daniel... > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: > > We had a very similar discussion about the back word compatibility > > classes/package names when Subversion graduated and we deemed it OK for > > them. > > In fact, I believe they still of org.tigris packages in their codebase > > long > > after graduation. See: > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/subversion/bindings/javah > > l/src/org/ > > > > > > I don't see why we would or should hold Sqoop to a different or higher > > standard at this point. I agree with Jukka that if we, as a foundation, > > would like to re-address this, fine, take it to trademarks@ and start a > > discussion. However, from an INCUBATOR standpoint, the precedent and > > expectations have been set. > > > > That's my $0.02 cents worth. > > Thanks a lot for this, but would you elaborate more on why this has been > accepted ? My believe is that there is some clarification that should be > added to documentation so it is more clear for all people in the future, > your input on this example would help indeed.
You could likely read the mail archives if you want all the details. general@incubator in Nov 2009 had a thread, dev@subversion in Jan 2010 had a thread, and I think the graduation vote in Feb 2010 had more discussions. Basically, the Subversion had binary compatibility "rules" and there was no real "legal" requirement to force a huge disruption in the community by changing the package names. The project had a plan to deprecate them/create wrappers/whatever so when it was appropriate to break compatibility they would. -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
