You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> on 2011/09/07 02:27:50 UTC
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Doug Meil,
Top-posting is generally less than idea, but I want to respond to the
overall theme of your message, not to individual points and sentences.
The attitude of various chunks of the US government to Open Source has
changed radically over the last few years. What would have been
institutionally impossible is now encouraged. It is unfair to
criticize these people for being under the radar when their management
told them to be under the radar and claim that the leopard cannot
change its spots. That situation has changed. The code base exists, it
serves a particular collection of needs, and here they are.
Lots of incubator proposals come from groups of people with little or
no prior track record at Apache or in Open Source at all. The point of
incubation is to give them a chance to either learn how to be an
Apache TLP -- or not. We do not tell people 'go away, you haven't
enough pedigree.' Mentors have more work to do when the nucleus of a
podling is comparatively inexperienced.
Further, I don't know of any policy of the ASF in general, or the
incubator in particular, that insists that a group of itch-scratchers
make any particular attempt to make any particular gesture towards any
particular existing community as a prerequisite of incubation. Five of
my friends and I could turn up here tomorrow with a proposal to fork
an existing TLP to scratch our particular itch, and, so far as I can
tell, the incubator PMC would evaluate the proposal on its merits,
independent of the fork.
You are of course entitled to your opinions and concerns, but if you
think that there is some policy that supports the position that PMC
members should vote -1 on this proposal due to these issues I wish you
would cite it.
In the past, committers of existing TLP's have been, well,
particularly vigilant in monitoring the progress of 'competing'
podlings. CXF was an example podling of this effect. You are, of
course, welcome to adopt that stance. You are also welcome to slurp up
every line of their code, once in place, if you think that HBase could
benefit from it.
Perhaps needless to say, but as a Mentor-in-waiting, I'm all in favor
of this proposal.
--benson margulies
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Sounds great!
-- dims
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Billie J Rinaldi
<bi...@ugov.gov> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2011 4:14:26 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>> From my perspective, that is more the case though your second sentence
>> above comes across as a setup for our not integrating.
>
> How about this?
> "It may be possible to incorporate the desired features of Accumulo into HBase. However, the amount of work required would slow development of HBase and Accumulo considerably. We believe this warrants a podling for Accumulo at the current time. We expect active cross-pollination will occur between HBase and podling Accumulo and it is possible that the codebases and projects will ultimately converge."
>
> Billie
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Billie J Rinaldi
<bi...@ugov.gov> wrote:
> How about this?
> "It may be possible to incorporate the desired features of Accumulo into HBase. However, the amount of work required would slow development of HBase and Accumulo considerably. We believe this warrants a podling for Accumulo at the current time. We expect active cross-pollination will occur between HBase and podling Accumulo and it is possible that the codebases and projects will ultimately converge."
>
This is better than the former.
Good luck,
St.Ack
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> A bit of back story of a slightly similar situation before. We have
> had Axis/Axis2 projects in Apache for a long time and along came the
> XFire proposal (http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CeltiXfireProposal)
> and we had the same kind of discussions as i see here.
>
> Flash forward, Both Axis2 and CXF are flourishing, there are folks who
> are working on components that get used by both projects like
> XmlSchema and WSS4J.
>
> So my 2 cents, take a deep breath and think of ways to collaborate
> even if it means 2 code bases with some common code, it does not have
> to be one code base for one situation/scenario. Do reach out to each
> other, hang out on each others mailing lists to make that
> collaboration happen.
There's another useful analogy with CXF. If a group of people showed
up with a proposal to make a brand new fork and launch on it, I for
one would politely ask them why they feel the need to diverge, and I
might hear something that disturbed me.
However, that's not the situation here. A community of developers
formed inside of a set of institutions that did not allow them to
interact with HBase. Now they exist, and their code exists, and their
rules have changed. They propose to join us. My reaction? "Wonderful!"
It may be that, over time, this group and the existing HBase group
will discover a commonality of interest and goal, and coalesce into
one big happy community. It may also be that differing priorities
won't lead in that direction.
>
> thanks,
> dims
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Billie J Rinaldi
>> <bi...@ugov.gov> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2011 1:34:20 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree w/ Doug that 'unlikely to' is not a correct characterization.
>>>
>>> Would the following alteration be more accurate?
>>> "It may be possible to incorporate the desired features of Accumulo into HBase. However, the amount of work required at the current time would slow development of HBase and Accumulo considerably."
>>>
>>
>> From my perspective, that is more the case though your second sentence
>> above comes across as a setup for our not integrating.
>>
>>
>>>> But rumor has it though that the differences while small looking when
>>>> described in a short incubator proposal, in implementation, the code
>>>> is very different making an integration project, unfortunately, a
>>>> piece of work.
>>>
>>> Yes, the implementation is very different, and we had difficulty capturing that in the proposal.
>>>
>>
>> Understood.
>>
>>
>>>> hbase TRUNK coprocessors seem to be a more generic Iterator facility
>>>
>>> Some types of functions (e.g. query-time aggregation) can be implemented in both coprocessors and iterators, but coprocessors will not easily support the entirety of iterator functionality. Nor is the reverse true. The two models present different programming mechanisms for server-side processing. It would be useful to have both in the same project.
>>>
>>
>> I'll take your word for it not having seen the code.
>>
>> St.Ack
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Folks,
A bit of back story of a slightly similar situation before. We have
had Axis/Axis2 projects in Apache for a long time and along came the
XFire proposal (http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CeltiXfireProposal)
and we had the same kind of discussions as i see here.
Flash forward, Both Axis2 and CXF are flourishing, there are folks who
are working on components that get used by both projects like
XmlSchema and WSS4J.
So my 2 cents, take a deep breath and think of ways to collaborate
even if it means 2 code bases with some common code, it does not have
to be one code base for one situation/scenario. Do reach out to each
other, hang out on each others mailing lists to make that
collaboration happen.
thanks,
dims
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Billie J Rinaldi
> <bi...@ugov.gov> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2011 1:34:20 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree w/ Doug that 'unlikely to' is not a correct characterization.
>>
>> Would the following alteration be more accurate?
>> "It may be possible to incorporate the desired features of Accumulo into HBase. However, the amount of work required at the current time would slow development of HBase and Accumulo considerably."
>>
>
> From my perspective, that is more the case though your second sentence
> above comes across as a setup for our not integrating.
>
>
>>> But rumor has it though that the differences while small looking when
>>> described in a short incubator proposal, in implementation, the code
>>> is very different making an integration project, unfortunately, a
>>> piece of work.
>>
>> Yes, the implementation is very different, and we had difficulty capturing that in the proposal.
>>
>
> Understood.
>
>
>>> hbase TRUNK coprocessors seem to be a more generic Iterator facility
>>
>> Some types of functions (e.g. query-time aggregation) can be implemented in both coprocessors and iterators, but coprocessors will not easily support the entirety of iterator functionality. Nor is the reverse true. The two models present different programming mechanisms for server-side processing. It would be useful to have both in the same project.
>>
>
> I'll take your word for it not having seen the code.
>
> St.Ack
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by Billie J Rinaldi <bi...@ugov.gov>.
On Wednesday, September 7, 2011 4:14:26 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> From my perspective, that is more the case though your second sentence
> above comes across as a setup for our not integrating.
How about this?
"It may be possible to incorporate the desired features of Accumulo into HBase. However, the amount of work required would slow development of HBase and Accumulo considerably. We believe this warrants a podling for Accumulo at the current time. We expect active cross-pollination will occur between HBase and podling Accumulo and it is possible that the codebases and projects will ultimately converge."
Billie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Billie J Rinaldi
<bi...@ugov.gov> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2011 1:34:20 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
>> I agree w/ Doug that 'unlikely to' is not a correct characterization.
>
> Would the following alteration be more accurate?
> "It may be possible to incorporate the desired features of Accumulo into HBase. However, the amount of work required at the current time would slow development of HBase and Accumulo considerably."
>
>From my perspective, that is more the case though your second sentence
above comes across as a setup for our not integrating.
>> But rumor has it though that the differences while small looking when
>> described in a short incubator proposal, in implementation, the code
>> is very different making an integration project, unfortunately, a
>> piece of work.
>
> Yes, the implementation is very different, and we had difficulty capturing that in the proposal.
>
Understood.
>> hbase TRUNK coprocessors seem to be a more generic Iterator facility
>
> Some types of functions (e.g. query-time aggregation) can be implemented in both coprocessors and iterators, but coprocessors will not easily support the entirety of iterator functionality. Nor is the reverse true. The two models present different programming mechanisms for server-side processing. It would be useful to have both in the same project.
>
I'll take your word for it not having seen the code.
St.Ack
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by Billie J Rinaldi <bi...@ugov.gov>.
On Wednesday, September 7, 2011 1:34:20 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> I agree w/ Doug that 'unlikely to' is not a correct characterization.
Would the following alteration be more accurate?
"It may be possible to incorporate the desired features of Accumulo into HBase. However, the amount of work required at the current time would slow development of HBase and Accumulo considerably."
> But rumor has it though that the differences while small looking when
> described in a short incubator proposal, in implementation, the code
> is very different making an integration project, unfortunately, a
> piece of work.
Yes, the implementation is very different, and we had difficulty capturing that in the proposal.
> hbase TRUNK coprocessors seem to be a more generic Iterator facility
Some types of functions (e.g. query-time aggregation) can be implemented in both coprocessors and iterators, but coprocessors will not easily support the entirety of iterator functionality. Nor is the reverse true. The two models present different programming mechanisms for server-side processing. It would be useful to have both in the same project.
Also, I saw that you wondered in a different forum whether editing locality groups requires taking a table offline. The table can remain online because files contain information about their own column groupings. Thus the changes can take place as new files are written to disk and old files are compacted.
Billie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Adam P Fuchs <ad...@ugov.gov> wrote:
> ...Furthermore, I believe that having both projects be part of ASF gives us more of an opportunity to collaborate going forwards. Whether we find that there are enough competing ideas to support two top level projects, or whether we end up collapsing Accumulo and HBase into one project, I think that the competition and collaboration we will see in the short term will be healthy for both projects.
>
IMO, the HBase project would be more into collaborating than it would
be up for competing.
The differences listed in the proposal are minor IMO. If you'd come
to the hbase project, even now, today, and said add a label to the
KeyValue and you'll get a set of smart developers on board and a bunch
of new users, it would be done. I agree w/ Doug that 'unlikely to' is
not a correct characterization. Similar for Accumulo Iterators (hbase
TRUNK coprocessors seem to be a more generic Iterator facility).
But rumor has it though that the differences while small looking when
described in a short incubator proposal, in implementation, the code
is very different making an integration project, unfortunately, a
piece of work.
I'd be up for exploring how we can come together. I've not seen the
code so excuse me my idealism.
The discussion here has been enlightening. The circumstances that
brought about this proposal are explained and why you could not ask
the hbase project do something like add a label to KeyValue. I'm
gung-ho on gov going more foss. If you lads are helping along that
effort, more power to you.
I'm looking forward to the code drop. That you didn't use more hbase
code must mean that you came up with something better. We want to rob
what you've come up with.
St.Ack
HBase Chief Janitor
P.S. I was surprised not to see Julian Assange alongside Doug as a
sponsor for this proposal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by Doug Meil <do...@explorysmedical.com>.
Thanks Phil, much appreciated.
On 9/7/11 12:19 PM, "Phillip Rhodes" <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think that the ASF and ASF incubator leadership should consider it a
>> priority to foster such communication. And this means asking the
>> questions I asked before, e.g,. "you guys are trying to do the same
>>thing
>> as... Have you talked them?" Consider it "Open-Source Project
>> Parenting."
>
>
>FWIW, while I agree that it's fine to have multiple "competing" projects,
>I do
>very much agree with this sentiment... encouraging some (at least initial)
>inter-project communication would probably be a Good Thing. Who
>knows, it may turn out to be the case that the HBase crew are wildly
>interested
>in this stuff, and this project can be be part of HBase from day 0.
>Or not that, but
>maybe there are some natural avenues for sharing
>(code|design|support|whatever).
>
>At a minimum, I think encouraging the two groups to do a little
>chatting is a positive.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>Phil
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by Phillip Rhodes <mo...@gmail.com>.
> I think that the ASF and ASF incubator leadership should consider it a
> priority to foster such communication. And this means asking the
> questions I asked before, e.g,. "you guys are trying to do the same thing
> as... Have you talked them?" Consider it "Open-Source Project
> Parenting."
FWIW, while I agree that it's fine to have multiple "competing" projects, I do
very much agree with this sentiment... encouraging some (at least initial)
inter-project communication would probably be a Good Thing. Who
knows, it may turn out to be the case that the HBase crew are wildly interested
in this stuff, and this project can be be part of HBase from day 0.
Or not that, but
maybe there are some natural avenues for sharing (code|design|support|whatever).
At a minimum, I think encouraging the two groups to do a little
chatting is a positive.
Cheers,
Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 04:34, Doug Meil <do...@explorysmedical.com> wrote:
> re: "overlap"
>
> This is the "there are multiple webservers in ASF" counter-argument -
> except that ones that exist are in two different languages (Apache WS and
> Tomcat). The point I made in my email is that if a 3rd webserver showed
> up that was written in Java that copied a couple thousand lines of code
> from Tomcat, I would hope somebody would ask why. I thought I had some
> agreements from some folks on this thread, but you feel differently so
> we're going to have to disagree.
This is not about "feeling differently". There is no "stealing" of
code or intellectual property, so as far as incubation is concerned
this is a non-argument.
Another example: Chukwa, Flume and Ambari. The're all incubating, with
significant overlap in features and technical architecture.
So what? If successful, some or all of them may become TLPs. I didn't
notice similar turf-related complaints from those projects.
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> No... Knowing Noel, he was not opening anything. He was speaking to
> general principles about how the Incubator works.
+1
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 22:34, Doug Meil <do...@explorysmedical.com> wrote:
>
> Hi there-
>
> I thought the email chain prompted by my questions had a gracious and
> productive ending several days ago, but if you would like to start this up
> again, ok.
No... Knowing Noel, he was not opening anything. He was speaking to
general principles about how the Incubator works. He just came to the
discussion late, and wanted to clarify the Incubator principles.
> re: "turf is being infringed"
>
> It's funny that you said that, because according to the other emails on
> Accumulo in the past week there are a couple thousand lines of HBase code
> in Accumulo, and core functionality at that (e.g., block cache). Even
> Incubator supporters of Accumulo would admit that's a little unusual in
> the ASF, and I believe they've said so in other threads I've seen.
What is unusual? Building upon other open source projects? Hardly.
> As was pointed out, HBase copied the Hadoop RPC for it's own purpose, but
> HBase wasn't trying to be another RPC framework - it was trying to be
> Hbase - something Hadoop was not.
>
> I'm not making a legal argument here because the ASF code license is free
> beer/speech, etc. It's just that Accumulo is, in a very real sense,
> actually standing on a part of HBase.
So f'ing what?!
The ASF releases its code for others to use and to build upon. They
are doing *exactly* what we want them to? What is your issue with
that?
> If there are other examples of this in Apache I'd be curious to know what
> they are. That's not a sarcastic request... seriously, I'd like to know
> because it would be worth documenting as case studies for other projects.
Who cares? Apache produces code to be *used*. Period. If other
projects at Apache use it, then awesome. If other projects fork it and
change it, then totally fine. It might be nice to feed their changes
back, but maybe they have a different goal, and need to take it in a
direction the original project will not sign up for.
In short: every comment of yours absolutely signals "turf war" to me.
You seemingly continue to take affront at Accumulo for one reason or
another, and attempt to justify that position through various
hand-waving that flies in the face of what the ASF truly represents.
And I say: that stinks.
Accumulo has every right, and every encouragement, to do exactly what
they're doing. And they are now able to share their work with us.
AWESOME. Nothing more difficult than that.
> re: "overlap"
>
> This is the "there are multiple webservers in ASF" counter-argument -
> except that ones that exist are in two different languages (Apache WS and
> Tomcat). The point I made in my email is that if a 3rd webserver showed
> up that was written in Java that copied a couple thousand lines of code
> from Tomcat, I would hope somebody would ask why. I thought I had some
> agreements from some folks on this thread, but you feel differently so
> we're going to have to disagree.
Language difference was just an example. You're focusing on the wrong
thing. The point is that a community desires to accomplish a task in a
different way. Whether that is through language, approach, or just a
different config file format... that is fine.
I'm with Alex on this one: we're here to foster communities. When
somebody has a new idea, then we are here to support them.
It is not our purpose to shut down communities.
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
Doug,
As Greg and others have pointed out, none of this really matters, but since,
you did ask for some examples, I can think of two immediately:
1) As Dim's pointed out, when CXF entered the incubator, it obviously
conflicted directly with Axis2. Many ideas were the same. Many of the
goals were the same. Etc... The community was different. There WERE forks
of some Apache WebServices things into CXF (a fork of Neethi being the primary
one). In the long run, things have worked out quite well with both Axis2
and CXF thriving despite both being written in Java and with likely a 90%
overlap in target problems they are trying to solve. The communities have
started working together on some of the underlying libs (example: ideas from
the fork of Neethi in CXF was pushed into ws to become Neethi 3.0 which they
now both use, but it took 4 years to get there), but the bulk of the
communities are separate.
2) Wink - when Wink entered the incubator, one of the proposed blocks of code
in the grant was a direct fork (with many changes) of the CXF JAX-RS
implementation. They ended up going a different direction, but one of the
original code bases was a direct fork of another Apache project. They've
figured out their niche, the CXF JAX-RS implementation has figure out it's
place and both are used.
So basically, as a bunch of folks have been saying, in many cases, a fork or a
new community duplicating some ideas in a new (or even the same) way is NOT a
bad thing. The incubator is here to foster new communities and help them
succeed and find their own place in the Apache ecosystem. If that
competes/overlaps with another Apache project, SO WHAT. Each community can
find their own niche and own solutions. Users can go to whichever solves
their problems better.
Anyway, you asked for examples, there are the two that popped into my head
immediately.
Dan
On Monday, September 12, 2011 10:34:53 PM Doug Meil wrote:
> Hi there-
>
> I thought the email chain prompted by my questions had a gracious and
> productive ending several days ago, but if you would like to start this up
> again, ok.
>
> re: "turf is being infringed"
>
> It's funny that you said that, because according to the other emails on
> Accumulo in the past week there are a couple thousand lines of HBase code
> in Accumulo, and core functionality at that (e.g., block cache). Even
> Incubator supporters of Accumulo would admit that's a little unusual in
> the ASF, and I believe they've said so in other threads I've seen.
>
> As was pointed out, HBase copied the Hadoop RPC for it's own purpose, but
> HBase wasn't trying to be another RPC framework - it was trying to be
> Hbase - something Hadoop was not.
>
> I'm not making a legal argument here because the ASF code license is free
> beer/speech, etc. It's just that Accumulo is, in a very real sense,
> actually standing on a part of HBase.
>
> If there are other examples of this in Apache I'd be curious to know what
> they are. That's not a sarcastic request... seriously, I'd like to know
> because it would be worth documenting as case studies for other projects.
>
>
> re: "overlap"
>
> This is the "there are multiple webservers in ASF" counter-argument -
> except that ones that exist are in two different languages (Apache WS and
> Tomcat). The point I made in my email is that if a 3rd webserver showed
> up that was written in Java that copied a couple thousand lines of code
> from Tomcat, I would hope somebody would ask why. I thought I had some
> agreements from some folks on this thread, but you feel differently so
> we're going to have to disagree.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Doug
>
> On 9/12/11 8:56 PM, "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> >Doug Meil wrote:
> >> I think that the ASF and ASF incubator leadership should consider it a
> >> priority to foster such communication.
> >
> >We do. I, in particular, tend to do it --- and have on occassion been
> >criticized for trying to foster project collaboration and/or merger.
> >
> >BUT ...
> >
> >The Incubator does not pick winners, exclude projects based on overlap
> >with
> >others, or deny a community a chance just because some other project (ASF
> >or
> >otherwise) feels that their turf is being infringed. We have been very
> >consistent on this issue.
> >
> >Your best move is to open talks with the Accumulo community, and see what
> >options for collaboration and/or merger exist as it proceeds.
> >
> >As for some of the other comments, Accumulo will be held to the same
> >standards as every other project, and will be required to exhibit The
> >Apache
> >Way.
> >
> > --- Noel
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend - http://www.talend.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by Doug Meil <do...@explorysmedical.com>.
Hi there-
I thought the email chain prompted by my questions had a gracious and
productive ending several days ago, but if you would like to start this up
again, ok.
re: "turf is being infringed"
It's funny that you said that, because according to the other emails on
Accumulo in the past week there are a couple thousand lines of HBase code
in Accumulo, and core functionality at that (e.g., block cache). Even
Incubator supporters of Accumulo would admit that's a little unusual in
the ASF, and I believe they've said so in other threads I've seen.
As was pointed out, HBase copied the Hadoop RPC for it's own purpose, but
HBase wasn't trying to be another RPC framework - it was trying to be
Hbase - something Hadoop was not.
I'm not making a legal argument here because the ASF code license is free
beer/speech, etc. It's just that Accumulo is, in a very real sense,
actually standing on a part of HBase.
If there are other examples of this in Apache I'd be curious to know what
they are. That's not a sarcastic request... seriously, I'd like to know
because it would be worth documenting as case studies for other projects.
re: "overlap"
This is the "there are multiple webservers in ASF" counter-argument -
except that ones that exist are in two different languages (Apache WS and
Tomcat). The point I made in my email is that if a 3rd webserver showed
up that was written in Java that copied a couple thousand lines of code
from Tomcat, I would hope somebody would ask why. I thought I had some
agreements from some folks on this thread, but you feel differently so
we're going to have to disagree.
Thanks.
Doug
On 9/12/11 8:56 PM, "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>Doug Meil wrote:
>
>> I think that the ASF and ASF incubator leadership should consider it a
>> priority to foster such communication.
>
>We do. I, in particular, tend to do it --- and have on occassion been
>criticized for trying to foster project collaboration and/or merger.
>
>BUT ...
>
>The Incubator does not pick winners, exclude projects based on overlap
>with
>others, or deny a community a chance just because some other project (ASF
>or
>otherwise) feels that their turf is being infringed. We have been very
>consistent on this issue.
>
>Your best move is to open talks with the Accumulo community, and see what
>options for collaboration and/or merger exist as it proceeds.
>
>As for some of the other comments, Accumulo will be held to the same
>standards as every other project, and will be required to exhibit The
>Apache
>Way.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Doug Meil wrote:
> I think that the ASF and ASF incubator leadership should consider it a
> priority to foster such communication.
We do. I, in particular, tend to do it --- and have on occassion been
criticized for trying to foster project collaboration and/or merger.
BUT ...
The Incubator does not pick winners, exclude projects based on overlap with
others, or deny a community a chance just because some other project (ASF or
otherwise) feels that their turf is being infringed. We have been very
consistent on this issue.
Your best move is to open talks with the Accumulo community, and see what
options for collaboration and/or merger exist as it proceeds.
As for some of the other comments, Accumulo will be held to the same
standards as every other project, and will be required to exhibit The Apache
Way.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by Doug Meil <do...@explorysmedical.com>.
Thanks for the feedback folks.
I would caution that it is not possible to simultaneously optimize for
both of these goals...
1) Community over code
2) Competition is good
... as both will be lost. Particularly where the latter contains the
absence of inter-project communication, and competition-at-any-price.
Without communication, there is no community.
I think that the ASF and ASF incubator leadership should consider it a
priority to foster such communication. And this means asking the
questions I asked before, e.g,. "you guys are trying to do the same thing
as... Have you talked them?" Consider it "Open-Source Project
Parenting."
Doug
On 9/7/11 3:16 AM, "Alex Karasulu" <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> Doug Meil,
>
>SNIP
>
>> Lots of incubator proposals come from groups of people with little or
>> no prior track record at Apache or in Open Source at all. The point of
>> incubation is to give them a chance to either learn how to be an
>> Apache TLP -- or not. We do not tell people 'go away, you haven't
>> enough pedigree.' Mentors have more work to do when the nucleus of a
>> podling is comparatively inexperienced.
>
>Well put! They have some community skills to develop but that does not
>mean they don't deserve a chance. Although I snipped the paragraph you
>included regarding the nature of government institutions, I think this
>is a great opportunity for the Apache Way to start infusing into these
>kinds of organization. Even if the polling terminates before
>graduation there's a lot to be learned from the effort.
>
>> Further, I don't know of any policy of the ASF in general, or the
>> incubator in particular, that insists that a group of itch-scratchers
>> make any particular attempt to make any particular gesture towards any
>> particular existing community as a prerequisite of incubation. Five of
>> my friends and I could turn up here tomorrow with a proposal to fork
>> an existing TLP to scratch our particular itch, and, so far as I can
>> tell, the incubator PMC would evaluate the proposal on its merits,
>> independent of the fork.
>
>Yep, the point is community, over code. If Project X has a dominant
>group (say all from the same company) suppressing valid technical
>advances other than those in line with their agenda, then the
>suffering minority can choose to fork and propose a new community for
>incubation. Project X and Project Y can co-exist at Apache. Regardless
>of our project nomenclature, I don't see incubator proposals as
>proposals for projects but rather proposals for new communities. The
>substrate bringing the community together is the code.
>
>Forking code bases and incubating parallel communities is not a bad
>thing: it provides a means to release pressure. I've seen some
>negative corporate driven dynamics in various new projects. I've made
>some light comments to improve productivity without any kind of
>aggressive push yet have been confronted with a negative, "we don't do
>it that way, we've done it this way, our way, for years." I'm appalled
>by the code quality at the same time but that's a different matter and
>I'm not going to reopen that extremely long thread we had in the past.
>If those being pushed away continue to be pushed away then the right
>to fork and start a new community presents an excellent opportunity
>for the oppressed voices.
>
>Everybody deserves a chance. AFAIC I don't care of this proposal is a
>complete fork of HBase itself. If they want to build a community in
>line with the Apache Way then we welcome them to try. If they fail to
>meet the requirements then that's no skin off our back.
>
>> You are of course entitled to your opinions and concerns, but if you
>> think that there is some policy that supports the position that PMC
>> members should vote -1 on this proposal due to these issues I wish you
>> would cite it.
>
>Ditto.
>
>SNIP ...
>
>Best Regards,
>-- Alex
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Doug Meil,
SNIP
> Lots of incubator proposals come from groups of people with little or
> no prior track record at Apache or in Open Source at all. The point of
> incubation is to give them a chance to either learn how to be an
> Apache TLP -- or not. We do not tell people 'go away, you haven't
> enough pedigree.' Mentors have more work to do when the nucleus of a
> podling is comparatively inexperienced.
Well put! They have some community skills to develop but that does not
mean they don't deserve a chance. Although I snipped the paragraph you
included regarding the nature of government institutions, I think this
is a great opportunity for the Apache Way to start infusing into these
kinds of organization. Even if the polling terminates before
graduation there's a lot to be learned from the effort.
> Further, I don't know of any policy of the ASF in general, or the
> incubator in particular, that insists that a group of itch-scratchers
> make any particular attempt to make any particular gesture towards any
> particular existing community as a prerequisite of incubation. Five of
> my friends and I could turn up here tomorrow with a proposal to fork
> an existing TLP to scratch our particular itch, and, so far as I can
> tell, the incubator PMC would evaluate the proposal on its merits,
> independent of the fork.
Yep, the point is community, over code. If Project X has a dominant
group (say all from the same company) suppressing valid technical
advances other than those in line with their agenda, then the
suffering minority can choose to fork and propose a new community for
incubation. Project X and Project Y can co-exist at Apache. Regardless
of our project nomenclature, I don't see incubator proposals as
proposals for projects but rather proposals for new communities. The
substrate bringing the community together is the code.
Forking code bases and incubating parallel communities is not a bad
thing: it provides a means to release pressure. I've seen some
negative corporate driven dynamics in various new projects. I've made
some light comments to improve productivity without any kind of
aggressive push yet have been confronted with a negative, "we don't do
it that way, we've done it this way, our way, for years." I'm appalled
by the code quality at the same time but that's a different matter and
I'm not going to reopen that extremely long thread we had in the past.
If those being pushed away continue to be pushed away then the right
to fork and start a new community presents an excellent opportunity
for the oppressed voices.
Everybody deserves a chance. AFAIC I don't care of this proposal is a
complete fork of HBase itself. If they want to build a community in
line with the Apache Way then we welcome them to try. If they fail to
meet the requirements then that's no skin off our back.
> You are of course entitled to your opinions and concerns, but if you
> think that there is some policy that supports the position that PMC
> members should vote -1 on this proposal due to these issues I wish you
> would cite it.
Ditto.
SNIP ...
Best Regards,
-- Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by Adam P Fuchs <ad...@ugov.gov>.
Hello Doug,
I appreciate your concerns, and I would like to try to provide some context that might help you understand why we think the ASF is the right place for Accumulo.
Benson is correct that the Accumulo developers have historically not been authorized to participate in public open-source forums in any official capacity. This has led us to developing Accumulo as an "internal open-source" project rather than participating directly in the development of HBase or other BigTable derivatives. While we have been coding Accumulo for the past three years, we have also been working to improve our policies for a good portion of that time. We expect that our policy efforts, which have enabled us to make this proposal to ASF, will enable us to participate in the open source community in a way that was not previously possible. We're also hoping that our participation will draw more open-source participation from a large group of developers working in other government organizations and contractors.
While our internal group is only a microcosm of the true, global open-source community, we have still been operating with good open-source coding practices. You don't really have to take our word for that -- the incubator process gives us a great opportunity to show that we can properly participate.
I understand that you're also concerned that Accumulo will compete for resources with HBase, and that there might not be room for the two projects in ASF. I would argue that development resources will be (and have been) split between the two projects regardless of whether they are both part of ASF or not. Furthermore, I believe that having both projects be part of ASF gives us more of an opportunity to collaborate going forwards. Whether we find that there are enough competing ideas to support two top level projects, or whether we end up collapsing Accumulo and HBase into one project, I think that the competition and collaboration we will see in the short term will be healthy for both projects.
I look forward to working with you more closely in the future.
Cheers,
Adam
P.S. We didn't mean to imply in the proposal that we have a relationship with the community developing HBase -- only to imply that Accumulo and HBase share common goals. We have reworded the proposal to try to clarify this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
Doug, I was criticizing my message, not yours in that respect. which
should have been clear from the comment justifying.
On Sep 6, 2011, at 10:07 PM, Doug Meil <do...@explorysmedical.com> wrote:
>
> Greetings Benson,
>
> re: "top-posting is generally less than ideal"
>
> It's funny that you would say that, because there was a 17 message
> email-chain about Accumulo this past weekend that you participated in, and
> I noticed that you didn't tell any of those people that posting on this
> dist-list was a bad idea.
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201109.mbox/brow
> ser
>
> re: "pedigree"
>
> Pedigree is hardly what anybody is looking for. I have been answering
> questions on the HBase dist-list for 2 years (yes, since HBase 0.20) and I
> can tell you personally that some of the people on the dist-list are
> brilliant, and others I wonder how they managed to turn their computer on
> (hey, did I just say that out loud?).
>
> But we try to answer all their questions just the same.
>
> I'll let the other HBase team members speak for themselves, but my request
> to ASF is that if somebody proposes something that nearly exactly like an
> existing ASF project, and it's implemented in the same language, and it
> even copies their code - shouldn't somebody at ASF ask the proposing team:
> "have you guys talked to the other project?" Especially since, in this
> case, one of their claims is that HBase "can't do or has no plans" for
> something.
>
>
> It's all about community, isn't it?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9/6/11 8:27 PM, "Benson Margulies" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Doug Meil,
>>
>> Top-posting is generally less than idea, but I want to respond to the
>> overall theme of your message, not to individual points and sentences.
>>
>> The attitude of various chunks of the US government to Open Source has
>> changed radically over the last few years. What would have been
>> institutionally impossible is now encouraged. It is unfair to
>> criticize these people for being under the radar when their management
>> told them to be under the radar and claim that the leopard cannot
>> change its spots. That situation has changed. The code base exists, it
>> serves a particular collection of needs, and here they are.
>>
>> Lots of incubator proposals come from groups of people with little or
>> no prior track record at Apache or in Open Source at all. The point of
>> incubation is to give them a chance to either learn how to be an
>> Apache TLP -- or not. We do not tell people 'go away, you haven't
>> enough pedigree.' Mentors have more work to do when the nucleus of a
>> podling is comparatively inexperienced.
>>
>> Further, I don't know of any policy of the ASF in general, or the
>> incubator in particular, that insists that a group of itch-scratchers
>> make any particular attempt to make any particular gesture towards any
>> particular existing community as a prerequisite of incubation. Five of
>> my friends and I could turn up here tomorrow with a proposal to fork
>> an existing TLP to scratch our particular itch, and, so far as I can
>> tell, the incubator PMC would evaluate the proposal on its merits,
>> independent of the fork.
>>
>> You are of course entitled to your opinions and concerns, but if you
>> think that there is some policy that supports the position that PMC
>> members should vote -1 on this proposal due to these issues I wish you
>> would cite it.
>>
>> In the past, committers of existing TLP's have been, well,
>> particularly vigilant in monitoring the progress of 'competing'
>> podlings. CXF was an example podling of this effect. You are, of
>> course, welcome to adopt that stance. You are also welcome to slurp up
>> every line of their code, once in place, if you think that HBase could
>> benefit from it.
>>
>> Perhaps needless to say, but as a Mentor-in-waiting, I'm all in favor
>> of this proposal.
>>
>> --benson margulies
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
On 9/6/2011 10:07 PM, Doug Meil wrote:
...snip...
> I'll let the other HBase team members speak for themselves, but my request
> to ASF is that if somebody proposes something that nearly exactly like an
> existing ASF project, and it's implemented in the same language, and it
> even copies their code - shouldn't somebody at ASF ask the proposing team:
> "have you guys talked to the other project?" Especially since, in this
> case, one of their claims is that HBase "can't do or has no plans" for
> something.
>
>
> It's all about community, isn't it?
Yes, a [PROPOSAL] thread is certainly a place to ask about what other
Apache projects and communities are related to the proposal, and how
they've interacted before. It seems
But we're happy to incubate any promising community, even if their
technology competes with an existing Apache project. It indeed is about
community - and if there's another promising community that wants to
fork Subversion and build BigBrother, then we should let them try it.
- Shane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Posted by Doug Meil <do...@explorysmedical.com>.
Greetings Benson,
re: "top-posting is generally less than ideal"
It's funny that you would say that, because there was a 17 message
email-chain about Accumulo this past weekend that you participated in, and
I noticed that you didn't tell any of those people that posting on this
dist-list was a bad idea.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201109.mbox/brow
ser
re: "pedigree"
Pedigree is hardly what anybody is looking for. I have been answering
questions on the HBase dist-list for 2 years (yes, since HBase 0.20) and I
can tell you personally that some of the people on the dist-list are
brilliant, and others I wonder how they managed to turn their computer on
(hey, did I just say that out loud?).
But we try to answer all their questions just the same.
I'll let the other HBase team members speak for themselves, but my request
to ASF is that if somebody proposes something that nearly exactly like an
existing ASF project, and it's implemented in the same language, and it
even copies their code - shouldn't somebody at ASF ask the proposing team:
"have you guys talked to the other project?" Especially since, in this
case, one of their claims is that HBase "can't do or has no plans" for
something.
It's all about community, isn't it?
On 9/6/11 8:27 PM, "Benson Margulies" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Doug Meil,
>
>Top-posting is generally less than idea, but I want to respond to the
>overall theme of your message, not to individual points and sentences.
>
>The attitude of various chunks of the US government to Open Source has
>changed radically over the last few years. What would have been
>institutionally impossible is now encouraged. It is unfair to
>criticize these people for being under the radar when their management
>told them to be under the radar and claim that the leopard cannot
>change its spots. That situation has changed. The code base exists, it
>serves a particular collection of needs, and here they are.
>
>Lots of incubator proposals come from groups of people with little or
>no prior track record at Apache or in Open Source at all. The point of
>incubation is to give them a chance to either learn how to be an
>Apache TLP -- or not. We do not tell people 'go away, you haven't
>enough pedigree.' Mentors have more work to do when the nucleus of a
>podling is comparatively inexperienced.
>
>Further, I don't know of any policy of the ASF in general, or the
>incubator in particular, that insists that a group of itch-scratchers
>make any particular attempt to make any particular gesture towards any
>particular existing community as a prerequisite of incubation. Five of
>my friends and I could turn up here tomorrow with a proposal to fork
>an existing TLP to scratch our particular itch, and, so far as I can
>tell, the incubator PMC would evaluate the proposal on its merits,
>independent of the fork.
>
>You are of course entitled to your opinions and concerns, but if you
>think that there is some policy that supports the position that PMC
>members should vote -1 on this proposal due to these issues I wish you
>would cite it.
>
>In the past, committers of existing TLP's have been, well,
>particularly vigilant in monitoring the progress of 'competing'
>podlings. CXF was an example podling of this effect. You are, of
>course, welcome to adopt that stance. You are also welcome to slurp up
>every line of their code, once in place, if you think that HBase could
>benefit from it.
>
>Perhaps needless to say, but as a Mentor-in-waiting, I'm all in favor
>of this proposal.
>
>--benson margulies
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org