On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org> > >> Sqoop was ASL licensed and had an open following long before it >> was accepted for incubation to Apache. The community is trying to >> rectify the short term migration requirements against doing the right >> thing by both Apache and that community. >> >> > OK that does not in any way invalidate my summary. You're just taking > swipes for no reason. Do you honestly think I'm trying to spread FUD here? >
You're a smart guy, it was discussed multiple times by multiple people (myself, Arvind, Greg, Jukka, etc...) on the other thread. The basis and rational clearly laid out. What else am I to think. > You guys might have had to deal with a lot of nasty jealous types not > liking that Cloudera is such a success. I'd like to think there are no > people like this here but I may be naive. I'm not one of those people. I > like to see Cloudera like commercialization occur but would like some care > taken to protect the foundation. The foundation gains through your > successes as well. So please don't classify me incorrectly: I'm not one of > those types. > I don't believe that's the issue at all, at least not for me personally. Arvind and I are careful to wear our Apache hats in these discussions. The Sqoop community is trying it's best to follow established Apache rules and policy. If there's an issue with Sqoop where it's not doing this of course they'll make changes. However at this point there is no such thing. Don't get me wrong here either, I was/am fine with your highlighting this issue (your original point), if you have a concern you need to raise it. Patrick > I read more into Scoop and I think I'm going to be a happy user soon too. > > And Arvind's comments below are noted but they don't change the existing > conditions today. It just means you have a plan for the future: this is > good. > > >> Arvind: >> >> > ... it would have >> > been easier for us[ sqoop community at apache] to drop any backward >> compatibility requirements and >> > get releases out quickly. The reason we chose to invest a lot in >> > preserving backward compatibility is for our community. Sqoop has an >> > active community that we care deeply about and we have done our best >> > to make sure continues to use Sqoop effectively. It is this thriving >> > community that was the primary reason for Sqoop to have come into the >> > incubator in the first place. >> >> Keep in mind also that this is a short term solution that has a longer >> term resolution (one already discussed on the other thread as well): >> >> Here is Arvind's response to Jukka proposing that Sqoop address the >> packaging issue post graduation: >> >> > 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 >> >> Patrick >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> > > > -- > Best Regards, > -- Alex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
