You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Stack <st...@duboce.net> on 2010/04/01 16:56:38 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] HBase as Apache top-level project?
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Jonathan Gray <jg...@facebook.com> wrote:
> Annoyance has really not gotten us anywhere. And I don't think it matters to those in Hadoop whether we are a TLP or SP, they will not (or should not) be offended if we break off. Do you think they would take us (or our patches) less seriously if we were a TLP?
>
No.
> What has pushed things forward is continuing to make HBase better so that more people want to use it. A larger community and involvement from larger companies will help push Hadoop changes aimed at HBase, especially when those companies are Hadoop contributors.
>
Agreed.
> If we do think we can get some HBase committers onto the Hadoop PMC, and we think that this will make a material difference in outcomes for us, then my opinion may change. Today I don't really think the issue is whether we are on the Hadoop PMC or not... my understanding is that big decisions are not voted on for a majority, if someone votes against it then it is tabled.
>
The quoted rule where long-time Hadoop subproject committers become
Hadoop PMC members may not actually hold. Or, to put it a another
way, efforts at trying to take advantage of this rule have run into
resistance, understandably so -- as in, how does hbase expertise
entitle a committer to hdfs commit rights? -- and I do not intend to
push it further.
So, that leaves the Jay Booth "stay and be annoying -- in a good way"
opinion, outstanding as a reason not to move. My current thought on
this is that the work involved will be the same regardless -- i.e. the
patch making, JIRA bashing, and consensus building -- whether we're
under the hadoop umbrella or up on a TLP perch.
St.Ack
Re: [DISCUSS] HBase as Apache top-level project?
Posted by Bradford Stephens <br...@gmail.com>.
Woops! Old thread :)
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Bradford Stephens <
bradfordstephens@gmail.com> wrote:
> My $0.02 is that whatever gets more attention, so you can get more good
> committers and patches, is what's best :)
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Jonathan Gray <jg...@facebook.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Annoyance has really not gotten us anywhere. And I don't think it
>> matters to those in Hadoop whether we are a TLP or SP, they will not (or
>> should not) be offended if we break off. Do you think they would take us
>> (or our patches) less seriously if we were a TLP?
>> >
>>
>> No.
>>
>> > What has pushed things forward is continuing to make HBase better so
>> that more people want to use it. A larger community and involvement from
>> larger companies will help push Hadoop changes aimed at HBase, especially
>> when those companies are Hadoop contributors.
>> >
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>
>> > If we do think we can get some HBase committers onto the Hadoop PMC, and
>> we think that this will make a material difference in outcomes for us, then
>> my opinion may change. Today I don't really think the issue is whether we
>> are on the Hadoop PMC or not... my understanding is that big decisions are
>> not voted on for a majority, if someone votes against it then it is tabled.
>> >
>>
>> The quoted rule where long-time Hadoop subproject committers become
>> Hadoop PMC members may not actually hold. Or, to put it a another
>> way, efforts at trying to take advantage of this rule have run into
>> resistance, understandably so -- as in, how does hbase expertise
>> entitle a committer to hdfs commit rights? -- and I do not intend to
>> push it further.
>>
>> So, that leaves the Jay Booth "stay and be annoying -- in a good way"
>> opinion, outstanding as a reason not to move. My current thought on
>> this is that the work involved will be the same regardless -- i.e. the
>> patch making, JIRA bashing, and consensus building -- whether we're
>> under the hadoop umbrella or up on a TLP perch.
>>
>> St.Ack
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Bradford Stephens,
> Founder, Drawn to Scale
> drawntoscalehq.com
> 727.697.7528
>
> http://www.drawntoscalehq.com -- The intuitive, cloud-scale data
> solution. Process, store, query, search, and serve all your data.
>
> http://www.roadtofailure.com -- The Fringes of Scalability, Social Media,
> and Computer Science
>
>
--
Bradford Stephens,
Founder, Drawn to Scale
drawntoscalehq.com
727.697.7528
http://www.drawntoscalehq.com -- The intuitive, cloud-scale data solution.
Process, store, query, search, and serve all your data.
http://www.roadtofailure.com -- The Fringes of Scalability, Social Media,
and Computer Science
Re: [DISCUSS] HBase as Apache top-level project?
Posted by Bradford Stephens <br...@gmail.com>.
My $0.02 is that whatever gets more attention, so you can get more good
committers and patches, is what's best :)
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Jonathan Gray <jg...@facebook.com> wrote:
> > Annoyance has really not gotten us anywhere. And I don't think it
> matters to those in Hadoop whether we are a TLP or SP, they will not (or
> should not) be offended if we break off. Do you think they would take us
> (or our patches) less seriously if we were a TLP?
> >
>
> No.
>
> > What has pushed things forward is continuing to make HBase better so that
> more people want to use it. A larger community and involvement from larger
> companies will help push Hadoop changes aimed at HBase, especially when
> those companies are Hadoop contributors.
> >
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> > If we do think we can get some HBase committers onto the Hadoop PMC, and
> we think that this will make a material difference in outcomes for us, then
> my opinion may change. Today I don't really think the issue is whether we
> are on the Hadoop PMC or not... my understanding is that big decisions are
> not voted on for a majority, if someone votes against it then it is tabled.
> >
>
> The quoted rule where long-time Hadoop subproject committers become
> Hadoop PMC members may not actually hold. Or, to put it a another
> way, efforts at trying to take advantage of this rule have run into
> resistance, understandably so -- as in, how does hbase expertise
> entitle a committer to hdfs commit rights? -- and I do not intend to
> push it further.
>
> So, that leaves the Jay Booth "stay and be annoying -- in a good way"
> opinion, outstanding as a reason not to move. My current thought on
> this is that the work involved will be the same regardless -- i.e. the
> patch making, JIRA bashing, and consensus building -- whether we're
> under the hadoop umbrella or up on a TLP perch.
>
> St.Ack
>
--
Bradford Stephens,
Founder, Drawn to Scale
drawntoscalehq.com
727.697.7528
http://www.drawntoscalehq.com -- The intuitive, cloud-scale data solution.
Process, store, query, search, and serve all your data.
http://www.roadtofailure.com -- The Fringes of Scalability, Social Media,
and Computer Science