My 2 cents, I second with Sean, as it's not necessary for downstream
projects to have a rule for config name starting with "spark".
I guess I know why they want it, but then it should be clear what's the
goal. To differentiate with existing spark configs? Using another prefix
would help. To smooth
It's possible, but pretty unlikely to have an exact namespace
collision. It's probably a best practice to clearly separates
settings, etc that are downstream add-ons into a separate namespace,
and I don't mind a sentence in a doc somewhere suggesting a
convention, but I really think it's up to down
