You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@zookeeper.apache.org by Benjamin Reed <br...@apache.org> on 2011/03/02 18:55:05 UTC
[DISCUSS] move hedwig/bookkeeper to subproject
i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and bookkeeper a
subproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in general
about all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions, in my
mind, that we need to answer to move forward:
1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there be two
separate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'm
wondering if we should try to build a single dev community or two. the
relationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on bookkeeper, but
not visa-versa. i'm inclined to say we do a hedwig subproject and
include bookkeeper with it, but i don't feel strongly.
2) should we propose a subproject to zookeeper or to incubator? i'm a
bit more inclined to propose a zookeeper subproject simply because it
fits well with the zookeeper community, but it does introduce a bit
more overhead to the zookeeper PMC.
3) do we have the developer interest to make it happen in the first
place? i know we can get at least 3 initial committers from yahoo!,
but projects should be represented by multiple companies. (the goal is
at least 3.) so, is there interest in working on the project from
others?
please comment. these are all open issues, so opinions are what i'm
looking for. if there isn't much discussion, i think that will
implicitly answer 3 :)
thanx
ben
Re: [DISCUSS] move hedwig/bookkeeper to subproject
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Benjamin Reed <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and bookkeeper a
> subproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in general
> about all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions, in my
> mind, that we need to answer to move forward:
>
> 1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there be two
> separate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'm
> wondering if we should try to build a single dev community or two. the
> relationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on bookkeeper, but
> not visa-versa. i'm inclined to say we do a hedwig subproject and
> include bookkeeper with it, but i don't feel strongly.
>
IMO both hedwig and bk should eventually be separate, distinct
projects on their own. This will allow communities to form around them
that are focused on their goals. Additionally it would allow us to
focus on building the zk community. An analogy could be made to
hadoop/hbase, or hadoop/pig&hive, or felix/karaf (or hadoop/zk),
etc...
> 2) should we propose a subproject to zookeeper or to incubator? i'm a
> bit more inclined to propose a zookeeper subproject simply because it
> fits well with the zookeeper community, but it does introduce a bit
> more overhead to the zookeeper PMC.
>
Pretty much everything that would be required in the incubator would
be done as a sub. As you mention, as a sub we (zk community) would be
on the hook to mentor them. The incubator has more experienced
oversight than we could bring to bear, they also have many more hands
than we do.
Granted, in each of the examples I gave earlier the projects did start
as subs...
> 3) do we have the developer interest to make it happen in the first
> place? i know we can get at least 3 initial committers from yahoo!,
> but projects should be represented by multiple companies. (the goal is
> at least 3.) so, is there interest in working on the project from
> others?
>
That's one of the things the incubator is for though, to build the
initial community.
> please comment. these are all open issues, so opinions are what i'm
> looking for. if there isn't much discussion, i think that will
> implicitly answer 3 :)
>
:-)
Patrick
Re: [DISCUSS] move hedwig/bookkeeper to subproject
Posted by Flavio Junqueira <fp...@yahoo-inc.com>.
I tend to agree that we should do one at a time, and it is fine with
me to have bookkeeper going out first.
On the discussion of Incubator vs. ZK sub-project, I don't see much
different except for the PMC. If I understand the incubator scheme
correctly, they have one PMC responsible for the oversight of
incubator projects. Since we know the ZooKeeper PMC well and some of
us are actually members of it, it seems more natural to me to stick
with the ZK PMC instead of moving to a different PMC. Consequently, my
current preference is ZK sub-project. Pat also pointed out that the ZK
umbrella is broad enough to accommodate BK/Hedwig according to the
Apache board resolution that established the project.
-Flavio
On Mar 16, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Ivan Kelly wrote:
> I agree about the separation of bookkeeper and hedwig. They solve
> very different problems, so lumping them together feels clunky.
> Perhaps bookkeeper could be moved out of zookeeper first, leaving
> hedwig in until there's more community interest in it.
>
> -Ivan
>
> On 15 Mar 2011, at 23:58, Dhruba Borthakur wrote:
>
>> I am interested in contributing to the bookkeeper code. It would be
>> nice to
>> have a community around it. An incubator proposal sounds good, but
>> the
>> zk-subproject should also work well. It woud be nice to separate
>> out hedwig
>> and bookkeeper since they have quite different functionality.
>>
>> -dhruba
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Mahadev Konar <ma...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I like the idea of BookKeeper/Hedwig being subprojects.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> mahadev
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fpj@yahoo-inc.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry for not replying before. I didn't feel that the
>>>>> message was
>>> for
>>>>> me, since it should be pretty obvious that I'm interested in those
>>>>> projects. Here are some thoughts, though:
>>>>>
>>>>> - It would be really nice to have committers for bookkeeper/
>>>>> hedwig;
>>>>> - It would be really nice to have independent releases for
>>>>> bookkeeper/hedwig;
>>>>> - It sounds like bookkeeper and hedwig don't always go together,
>>>>> and
>>> hdfs
>>>>> is an instance in which it happens. But, hedwig builds on top of
>>> bookkeeper
>>>>> (and other components), so using hedwig implies using bookkeeper.
>>>>> Consequently, if we choose only one to be a main project, perhaps
>>> bookkeeper
>>>>> would be a better choice;
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps one could argue that bk/hedwig fall under "distributed
>>>> system
>>>> coordination" and therefore should be part of ZK? Or is that too
>>>> much of
>>> a
>>>> stretch? ;-)
>>>>
>>>> RESOLVED, that the Apache ZooKeeper Project be and hereby is
>>>> responsible
>>>> for the creation and maintenance of software related to distributed
>>> system
>>>> coordination; and be it further
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> - I don't think we have anyone who could be a project lead for
>>>>> these
>>>>> projects right now, so it could be a problem to split up at this
>>>>> point.
>>> For
>>>>> this reason, a zookeeper subproject sounds like a better option
>>>>> compared
>>> to
>>>>> incubator, unless we are able to find a project lead.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Flavio
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and
>>>>> bookkeeper a
>>>>> subproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in
>>>>> general
>>>>> about all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions,
>>>>> in my
>>>>> mind, that we need to answer to move forward:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there
>>>>> be two
>>>>> separate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'm
>>>>> wondering if we should try to build a single dev community or
>>>>> two. the
>>>>> relationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on
>>>>> bookkeeper, but
>>>>> not visa-versa. i'm inclined to say we do a hedwig subproject and
>>>>> include bookkeeper with it, but i don't feel strongly.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) should we propose a subproject to zookeeper or to incubator?
>>>>> i'm a
>>>>> bit more inclined to propose a zookeeper subproject simply
>>>>> because it
>>>>> fits well with the zookeeper community, but it does introduce a
>>>>> bit
>>>>> more overhead to the zookeeper PMC.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) do we have the developer interest to make it happen in the
>>>>> first
>>>>> place? i know we can get at least 3 initial committers from
>>>>> yahoo!,
>>>>> but projects should be represented by multiple companies. (the
>>>>> goal is
>>>>> at least 3.) so, is there interest in working on the project from
>>>>> others?
>>>>>
>>>>> please comment. these are all open issues, so opinions are what
>>>>> i'm
>>>>> looking for. if there isn't much discussion, i think that will
>>>>> implicitly answer 3 :)
>>>>>
>>>>> thanx
>>>>> ben
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *flavio*
>>>>> *junqueira*
>>>>>
>>>>> research scientist
>>>>>
>>>>> fpj@yahoo-inc.com
>>>>> direct +34 93-183-8828
>>>>>
>>>>> avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es
>>>>> phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Connect to me at http://www.facebook.com/dhruba
>
flavio
junqueira
research scientist
fpj@yahoo-inc.com
direct +34 93-183-8828
avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es
phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301
Re: [DISCUSS] move hedwig/bookkeeper to subproject
Posted by Benjamin Reed <br...@apache.org>.
i think we need to move both of them out of contrib. they are just
languishing there. i agree that they could be separate projects, but
they are closer than may appear at a high level. the application that
hedwig was designed for is using it as a write ahead log. like
TeaKeeper shows often there is a requirement to both log and broadcast
changes. In some sense we have this continuum: BookKeeper (single
writer WAL), TeaKeeper (single writer WAL with broadcast), Hedwig
(multiple writer WAL with broadcast). Hedwig is also tightly
integrated with BookKeeper. The development community is also tightly
integrated. i think there are valid reasons for doing an incubator
project or for doing separate subprojects, but i think the best option
for now would be to do a subproject under zookeeper (called either
hedwig or bookkeeper) that would host both code bases.
ben
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> I agree about the separation of bookkeeper and hedwig. They solve very different problems, so lumping them together feels clunky. Perhaps bookkeeper could be moved out of zookeeper first, leaving hedwig in until there's more community interest in it.
>
> -Ivan
>
> On 15 Mar 2011, at 23:58, Dhruba Borthakur wrote:
>
>> I am interested in contributing to the bookkeeper code. It would be nice to
>> have a community around it. An incubator proposal sounds good, but the
>> zk-subproject should also work well. It woud be nice to separate out hedwig
>> and bookkeeper since they have quite different functionality.
>>
>> -dhruba
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Mahadev Konar <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I like the idea of BookKeeper/Hedwig being subprojects.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> mahadev
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fpj@yahoo-inc.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry for not replying before. I didn't feel that the message was
>>> for
>>>>> me, since it should be pretty obvious that I'm interested in those
>>>>> projects. Here are some thoughts, though:
>>>>>
>>>>> - It would be really nice to have committers for bookkeeper/hedwig;
>>>>> - It would be really nice to have independent releases for
>>>>> bookkeeper/hedwig;
>>>>> - It sounds like bookkeeper and hedwig don't always go together, and
>>> hdfs
>>>>> is an instance in which it happens. But, hedwig builds on top of
>>> bookkeeper
>>>>> (and other components), so using hedwig implies using bookkeeper.
>>>>> Consequently, if we choose only one to be a main project, perhaps
>>> bookkeeper
>>>>> would be a better choice;
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps one could argue that bk/hedwig fall under "distributed system
>>>> coordination" and therefore should be part of ZK? Or is that too much of
>>> a
>>>> stretch? ;-)
>>>>
>>>> RESOLVED, that the Apache ZooKeeper Project be and hereby is responsible
>>>> for the creation and maintenance of software related to distributed
>>> system
>>>> coordination; and be it further
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> - I don't think we have anyone who could be a project lead for these
>>>>> projects right now, so it could be a problem to split up at this point.
>>> For
>>>>> this reason, a zookeeper subproject sounds like a better option compared
>>> to
>>>>> incubator, unless we are able to find a project lead.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Flavio
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and bookkeeper a
>>>>> subproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in general
>>>>> about all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions, in my
>>>>> mind, that we need to answer to move forward:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there be two
>>>>> separate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'm
>>>>> wondering if we should try to build a single dev community or two. the
>>>>> relationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on bookkeeper, but
>>>>> not visa-versa. i'm inclined to say we do a hedwig subproject and
>>>>> include bookkeeper with it, but i don't feel strongly.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) should we propose a subproject to zookeeper or to incubator? i'm a
>>>>> bit more inclined to propose a zookeeper subproject simply because it
>>>>> fits well with the zookeeper community, but it does introduce a bit
>>>>> more overhead to the zookeeper PMC.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) do we have the developer interest to make it happen in the first
>>>>> place? i know we can get at least 3 initial committers from yahoo!,
>>>>> but projects should be represented by multiple companies. (the goal is
>>>>> at least 3.) so, is there interest in working on the project from
>>>>> others?
>>>>>
>>>>> please comment. these are all open issues, so opinions are what i'm
>>>>> looking for. if there isn't much discussion, i think that will
>>>>> implicitly answer 3 :)
>>>>>
>>>>> thanx
>>>>> ben
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *flavio*
>>>>> *junqueira*
>>>>>
>>>>> research scientist
>>>>>
>>>>> fpj@yahoo-inc.com
>>>>> direct +34 93-183-8828
>>>>>
>>>>> avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es
>>>>> phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Connect to me at http://www.facebook.com/dhruba
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] move hedwig/bookkeeper to subproject
Posted by Ivan Kelly <iv...@yahoo-inc.com>.
I agree about the separation of bookkeeper and hedwig. They solve very different problems, so lumping them together feels clunky. Perhaps bookkeeper could be moved out of zookeeper first, leaving hedwig in until there's more community interest in it.
-Ivan
On 15 Mar 2011, at 23:58, Dhruba Borthakur wrote:
> I am interested in contributing to the bookkeeper code. It would be nice to
> have a community around it. An incubator proposal sounds good, but the
> zk-subproject should also work well. It woud be nice to separate out hedwig
> and bookkeeper since they have quite different functionality.
>
> -dhruba
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Mahadev Konar <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I like the idea of BookKeeper/Hedwig being subprojects.
>>
>> thanks
>> mahadev
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fpj@yahoo-inc.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry for not replying before. I didn't feel that the message was
>> for
>>>> me, since it should be pretty obvious that I'm interested in those
>>>> projects. Here are some thoughts, though:
>>>>
>>>> - It would be really nice to have committers for bookkeeper/hedwig;
>>>> - It would be really nice to have independent releases for
>>>> bookkeeper/hedwig;
>>>> - It sounds like bookkeeper and hedwig don't always go together, and
>> hdfs
>>>> is an instance in which it happens. But, hedwig builds on top of
>> bookkeeper
>>>> (and other components), so using hedwig implies using bookkeeper.
>>>> Consequently, if we choose only one to be a main project, perhaps
>> bookkeeper
>>>> would be a better choice;
>>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps one could argue that bk/hedwig fall under "distributed system
>>> coordination" and therefore should be part of ZK? Or is that too much of
>> a
>>> stretch? ;-)
>>>
>>> RESOLVED, that the Apache ZooKeeper Project be and hereby is responsible
>>> for the creation and maintenance of software related to distributed
>> system
>>> coordination; and be it further
>>>
>>>
>>>> - I don't think we have anyone who could be a project lead for these
>>>> projects right now, so it could be a problem to split up at this point.
>> For
>>>> this reason, a zookeeper subproject sounds like a better option compared
>> to
>>>> incubator, unless we are able to find a project lead.
>>>>
>>>> -Flavio
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
>>>>
>>>> i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and bookkeeper a
>>>> subproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in general
>>>> about all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions, in my
>>>> mind, that we need to answer to move forward:
>>>>
>>>> 1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there be two
>>>> separate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'm
>>>> wondering if we should try to build a single dev community or two. the
>>>> relationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on bookkeeper, but
>>>> not visa-versa. i'm inclined to say we do a hedwig subproject and
>>>> include bookkeeper with it, but i don't feel strongly.
>>>>
>>>> 2) should we propose a subproject to zookeeper or to incubator? i'm a
>>>> bit more inclined to propose a zookeeper subproject simply because it
>>>> fits well with the zookeeper community, but it does introduce a bit
>>>> more overhead to the zookeeper PMC.
>>>>
>>>> 3) do we have the developer interest to make it happen in the first
>>>> place? i know we can get at least 3 initial committers from yahoo!,
>>>> but projects should be represented by multiple companies. (the goal is
>>>> at least 3.) so, is there interest in working on the project from
>>>> others?
>>>>
>>>> please comment. these are all open issues, so opinions are what i'm
>>>> looking for. if there isn't much discussion, i think that will
>>>> implicitly answer 3 :)
>>>>
>>>> thanx
>>>> ben
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *flavio*
>>>> *junqueira*
>>>>
>>>> research scientist
>>>>
>>>> fpj@yahoo-inc.com
>>>> direct +34 93-183-8828
>>>>
>>>> avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es
>>>> phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Connect to me at http://www.facebook.com/dhruba
Re: [DISCUSS] move hedwig/bookkeeper to subproject
Posted by Dhruba Borthakur <dh...@gmail.com>.
I am interested in contributing to the bookkeeper code. It would be nice to
have a community around it. An incubator proposal sounds good, but the
zk-subproject should also work well. It woud be nice to separate out hedwig
and bookkeeper since they have quite different functionality.
-dhruba
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Mahadev Konar <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> I like the idea of BookKeeper/Hedwig being subprojects.
>
> thanks
> mahadev
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fpj@yahoo-inc.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I'm sorry for not replying before. I didn't feel that the message was
> for
> >> me, since it should be pretty obvious that I'm interested in those
> >> projects. Here are some thoughts, though:
> >>
> >> - It would be really nice to have committers for bookkeeper/hedwig;
> >> - It would be really nice to have independent releases for
> >> bookkeeper/hedwig;
> >> - It sounds like bookkeeper and hedwig don't always go together, and
> hdfs
> >> is an instance in which it happens. But, hedwig builds on top of
> bookkeeper
> >> (and other components), so using hedwig implies using bookkeeper.
> >> Consequently, if we choose only one to be a main project, perhaps
> bookkeeper
> >> would be a better choice;
> >>
> >
> > Perhaps one could argue that bk/hedwig fall under "distributed system
> > coordination" and therefore should be part of ZK? Or is that too much of
> a
> > stretch? ;-)
> >
> > RESOLVED, that the Apache ZooKeeper Project be and hereby is responsible
> > for the creation and maintenance of software related to distributed
> system
> > coordination; and be it further
> >
> >
> >> - I don't think we have anyone who could be a project lead for these
> >> projects right now, so it could be a problem to split up at this point.
> For
> >> this reason, a zookeeper subproject sounds like a better option compared
> to
> >> incubator, unless we are able to find a project lead.
> >>
> >> -Flavio
> >>
> >> On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
> >>
> >> i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and bookkeeper a
> >> subproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in general
> >> about all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions, in my
> >> mind, that we need to answer to move forward:
> >>
> >> 1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there be two
> >> separate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'm
> >> wondering if we should try to build a single dev community or two. the
> >> relationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on bookkeeper, but
> >> not visa-versa. i'm inclined to say we do a hedwig subproject and
> >> include bookkeeper with it, but i don't feel strongly.
> >>
> >> 2) should we propose a subproject to zookeeper or to incubator? i'm a
> >> bit more inclined to propose a zookeeper subproject simply because it
> >> fits well with the zookeeper community, but it does introduce a bit
> >> more overhead to the zookeeper PMC.
> >>
> >> 3) do we have the developer interest to make it happen in the first
> >> place? i know we can get at least 3 initial committers from yahoo!,
> >> but projects should be represented by multiple companies. (the goal is
> >> at least 3.) so, is there interest in working on the project from
> >> others?
> >>
> >> please comment. these are all open issues, so opinions are what i'm
> >> looking for. if there isn't much discussion, i think that will
> >> implicitly answer 3 :)
> >>
> >> thanx
> >> ben
> >>
> >>
> >> *flavio*
> >> *junqueira*
> >>
> >> research scientist
> >>
> >> fpj@yahoo-inc.com
> >> direct +34 93-183-8828
> >>
> >> avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es
> >> phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
--
Connect to me at http://www.facebook.com/dhruba
Re: [DISCUSS] move hedwig/bookkeeper to subproject
Posted by Mahadev Konar <ma...@apache.org>.
I like the idea of BookKeeper/Hedwig being subprojects.
thanks
mahadev
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fp...@yahoo-inc.com>wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry for not replying before. I didn't feel that the message was for
>> me, since it should be pretty obvious that I'm interested in those
>> projects. Here are some thoughts, though:
>>
>> - It would be really nice to have committers for bookkeeper/hedwig;
>> - It would be really nice to have independent releases for
>> bookkeeper/hedwig;
>> - It sounds like bookkeeper and hedwig don't always go together, and hdfs
>> is an instance in which it happens. But, hedwig builds on top of bookkeeper
>> (and other components), so using hedwig implies using bookkeeper.
>> Consequently, if we choose only one to be a main project, perhaps bookkeeper
>> would be a better choice;
>>
>
> Perhaps one could argue that bk/hedwig fall under "distributed system
> coordination" and therefore should be part of ZK? Or is that too much of a
> stretch? ;-)
>
> RESOLVED, that the Apache ZooKeeper Project be and hereby is responsible
> for the creation and maintenance of software related to distributed system
> coordination; and be it further
>
>
>> - I don't think we have anyone who could be a project lead for these
>> projects right now, so it could be a problem to split up at this point. For
>> this reason, a zookeeper subproject sounds like a better option compared to
>> incubator, unless we are able to find a project lead.
>>
>> -Flavio
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
>>
>> i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and bookkeeper a
>> subproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in general
>> about all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions, in my
>> mind, that we need to answer to move forward:
>>
>> 1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there be two
>> separate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'm
>> wondering if we should try to build a single dev community or two. the
>> relationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on bookkeeper, but
>> not visa-versa. i'm inclined to say we do a hedwig subproject and
>> include bookkeeper with it, but i don't feel strongly.
>>
>> 2) should we propose a subproject to zookeeper or to incubator? i'm a
>> bit more inclined to propose a zookeeper subproject simply because it
>> fits well with the zookeeper community, but it does introduce a bit
>> more overhead to the zookeeper PMC.
>>
>> 3) do we have the developer interest to make it happen in the first
>> place? i know we can get at least 3 initial committers from yahoo!,
>> but projects should be represented by multiple companies. (the goal is
>> at least 3.) so, is there interest in working on the project from
>> others?
>>
>> please comment. these are all open issues, so opinions are what i'm
>> looking for. if there isn't much discussion, i think that will
>> implicitly answer 3 :)
>>
>> thanx
>> ben
>>
>>
>> *flavio*
>> *junqueira*
>>
>> research scientist
>>
>> fpj@yahoo-inc.com
>> direct +34 93-183-8828
>>
>> avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es
>> phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] move hedwig/bookkeeper to subproject
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fp...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry for not replying before. I didn't feel that the message was for
> me, since it should be pretty obvious that I'm interested in those
> projects. Here are some thoughts, though:
>
> - It would be really nice to have committers for bookkeeper/hedwig;
> - It would be really nice to have independent releases for
> bookkeeper/hedwig;
> - It sounds like bookkeeper and hedwig don't always go together, and hdfs
> is an instance in which it happens. But, hedwig builds on top of bookkeeper
> (and other components), so using hedwig implies using bookkeeper.
> Consequently, if we choose only one to be a main project, perhaps bookkeeper
> would be a better choice;
>
Perhaps one could argue that bk/hedwig fall under "distributed system
coordination" and therefore should be part of ZK? Or is that too much of a
stretch? ;-)
RESOLVED, that the Apache ZooKeeper Project be and hereby is responsible for
the creation and maintenance of software related to distributed system
coordination; and be it further
> - I don't think we have anyone who could be a project lead for these
> projects right now, so it could be a problem to split up at this point. For
> this reason, a zookeeper subproject sounds like a better option compared to
> incubator, unless we are able to find a project lead.
>
> -Flavio
>
> On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
>
> i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and bookkeeper a
> subproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in general
> about all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions, in my
> mind, that we need to answer to move forward:
>
> 1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there be two
> separate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'm
> wondering if we should try to build a single dev community or two. the
> relationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on bookkeeper, but
> not visa-versa. i'm inclined to say we do a hedwig subproject and
> include bookkeeper with it, but i don't feel strongly.
>
> 2) should we propose a subproject to zookeeper or to incubator? i'm a
> bit more inclined to propose a zookeeper subproject simply because it
> fits well with the zookeeper community, but it does introduce a bit
> more overhead to the zookeeper PMC.
>
> 3) do we have the developer interest to make it happen in the first
> place? i know we can get at least 3 initial committers from yahoo!,
> but projects should be represented by multiple companies. (the goal is
> at least 3.) so, is there interest in working on the project from
> others?
>
> please comment. these are all open issues, so opinions are what i'm
> looking for. if there isn't much discussion, i think that will
> implicitly answer 3 :)
>
> thanx
> ben
>
>
> *flavio*
> *junqueira*
>
> research scientist
>
> fpj@yahoo-inc.com
> direct +34 93-183-8828
>
> avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es
> phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] move hedwig/bookkeeper to subproject
Posted by Flavio Junqueira <fp...@yahoo-inc.com>.
I'm sorry for not replying before. I didn't feel that the message was
for me, since it should be pretty obvious that I'm interested in those
projects. Here are some thoughts, though:
- It would be really nice to have committers for bookkeeper/hedwig;
- It would be really nice to have independent releases for bookkeeper/
hedwig;
- It sounds like bookkeeper and hedwig don't always go together, and
hdfs is an instance in which it happens. But, hedwig builds on top of
bookkeeper (and other components), so using hedwig implies using
bookkeeper. Consequently, if we choose only one to be a main project,
perhaps bookkeeper would be a better choice;
- I don't think we have anyone who could be a project lead for these
projects right now, so it could be a problem to split up at this
point. For this reason, a zookeeper subproject sounds like a better
option compared to incubator, unless we are able to find a project lead.
-Flavio
On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
> i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and bookkeeper a
> subproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in general
> about all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions, in my
> mind, that we need to answer to move forward:
>
> 1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there be two
> separate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'm
> wondering if we should try to build a single dev community or two. the
> relationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on bookkeeper, but
> not visa-versa. i'm inclined to say we do a hedwig subproject and
> include bookkeeper with it, but i don't feel strongly.
>
> 2) should we propose a subproject to zookeeper or to incubator? i'm a
> bit more inclined to propose a zookeeper subproject simply because it
> fits well with the zookeeper community, but it does introduce a bit
> more overhead to the zookeeper PMC.
>
> 3) do we have the developer interest to make it happen in the first
> place? i know we can get at least 3 initial committers from yahoo!,
> but projects should be represented by multiple companies. (the goal is
> at least 3.) so, is there interest in working on the project from
> others?
>
> please comment. these are all open issues, so opinions are what i'm
> looking for. if there isn't much discussion, i think that will
> implicitly answer 3 :)
>
> thanx
> ben
flavio
junqueira
research scientist
fpj@yahoo-inc.com
direct +34 93-183-8828
avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es
phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301