You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hudi.apache.org by Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> on 2019/10/21 03:28:47 UTC
[DISCUSS] Rename HIP process to RFC
Someone asked me this and made me thinking about it. While HIP process
covers concrete proposals to Hudi, sometimes we may need to just write up
some ideas and solicit comments (e.g HudiLink
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HUDI/Hudi+for+Continuous+Deep+Analytics
)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments RFCs are used for
defining, reasoning about Internet standards.
I would like to propose that
- we can rename the HIP process to RFC, with an additional use-case of
covering docs written purely for discussion/feedback. For e.g, Flink
support thread was dense to follow, someone could have used a document to
fully present their ideas (we will still keep discussion on mailing list).
- While I concede renaming may be cosmetic, RFC (Request For Comments) has
a broader scope, which I like. :)
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename HIP process to RFC
Posted by Vinoth Chandar <ma...@gmail.com>.
Thanks all for the constructive comments! Will change the name in cWiki
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 6:27 PM vino yang <ya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> agree Vinoth, +1
>
> Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> 于2019年10月22日周二 下午8:31写道：
>
> > Good point. Even for HIP we initially had gdoc as the starting point and
> > once ratified we planned to move it to cwiki. But practical issues like
> > retaining formatting, porting over diagrams, version history between two
> > things made it cumbersome. So IMO single place is actually good. Wdyt?
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 5:02 AM vino yang <ya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 agree Thomas:
> > >
> > > For some general ideas, we can write gdoc and open a "DISCUSS" ML
> thread.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Vino
> > >
> > > Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> 于2019年10月22日周二 下午12:45写道：
> > >
> > > > Just in case that wasn't considered: Not every document needs to be
> on
> > > > cwiki, it is perfectly fine to write up ideas that are not a formal
> > "HIP"
> > > > in gdocs or similar.
> > > >
> > > > Thomas
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:40 PM Nishith <n3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > Encourages folks to read and write designs/ideas.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Oct 21, 2019, at 6:30 PM, leesf <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Leesf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <vb...@apache.org> 于2019年10月22日周二 上午3:40写道：
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> +1
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Balaji.V On Monday, October 21, 2019, 11:38:01 AM PDT, Y.
> > Ethan
> > > > Guo
> > > > > >> <gu...@uber.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> +1 on RFC. It's good to have a few pages of RFC to get a quick
> > look
> > > > of
> > > > > an
> > > > > >> idea. It doesn't have to be a full standard like some IETF
> RFCs.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:31 AM Taher Koitawala <
> > taherk77@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Agree Vinoth +1
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Regards,
> > > > > >>> Taher Koitawala
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 5:49 PM Bhavani Sudha <
> > > bhavanisudhas@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> +1 on RFC. Makes sense to me.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 8:29 PM Vinoth Chandar <
> > vinoth@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Someone asked me this and made me thinking about it. While
> HIP
> > > > > >> process
> > > > > >>>>> covers concrete proposals to Hudi, sometimes we may need to
> > just
> > > > > >> write
> > > > > >>> up
> > > > > >>>>> some ideas and solicit comments (e.g HudiLink
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.apache.org_confluence_display_HUDI_Hudi-2Bfor-2BContinuous-2BDeep-2BAnalytics&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=BtmOFE9z1baBO8A7gX7xN4a_-bJ8W97q2GBCg2HecaA&e=
> > > > > >>>>> )
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Request-5Ffor-5FComments&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=939DidQWDsxU0ERbE2lGD3Jjj5iwqKc8d4_TyoPWaJ8&e=
> > > > > >>> RFCs are used for
> > > > > >>>>> defining, reasoning about Internet standards.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I would like to propose that
> > > > > >>>>> - we can rename the HIP process to RFC, with an additional
> > > use-case
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >>>>> covering docs written purely for discussion/feedback. For
> e.g,
> > > > Flink
> > > > > >>>>> support thread was dense to follow, someone could have used a
> > > > > >> document
> > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >>>>> fully present their ideas (we will still keep discussion on
> > > mailing
> > > > > >>>> list).
> > > > > >>>>> - While I concede renaming may be cosmetic, RFC (Request For
> > > > > >> Comments)
> > > > > >>>> has
> > > > > >>>>> a broader scope, which I like. :)
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename HIP process to RFC
Posted by vino yang <ya...@gmail.com>.
agree Vinoth, +1
Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> 于2019年10月22日周二 下午8:31写道：
> Good point. Even for HIP we initially had gdoc as the starting point and
> once ratified we planned to move it to cwiki. But practical issues like
> retaining formatting, porting over diagrams, version history between two
> things made it cumbersome. So IMO single place is actually good. Wdyt?
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 5:02 AM vino yang <ya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 agree Thomas:
> >
> > For some general ideas, we can write gdoc and open a "DISCUSS" ML thread.
> >
> > Best,
> > Vino
> >
> > Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> 于2019年10月22日周二 下午12:45写道：
> >
> > > Just in case that wasn't considered: Not every document needs to be on
> > > cwiki, it is perfectly fine to write up ideas that are not a formal
> "HIP"
> > > in gdocs or similar.
> > >
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:40 PM Nishith <n3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Encourages folks to read and write designs/ideas.
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > > On Oct 21, 2019, at 6:30 PM, leesf <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Leesf
> > > > >
> > > > > <vb...@apache.org> 于2019年10月22日周二 上午3:40写道：
> > > > >
> > > > >> +1
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Balaji.V On Monday, October 21, 2019, 11:38:01 AM PDT, Y.
> Ethan
> > > Guo
> > > > >> <gu...@uber.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> +1 on RFC. It's good to have a few pages of RFC to get a quick
> look
> > > of
> > > > an
> > > > >> idea. It doesn't have to be a full standard like some IETF RFCs.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:31 AM Taher Koitawala <
> taherk77@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Agree Vinoth +1
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Regards,
> > > > >>> Taher Koitawala
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 5:49 PM Bhavani Sudha <
> > bhavanisudhas@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> +1 on RFC. Makes sense to me.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 8:29 PM Vinoth Chandar <
> vinoth@apache.org
> > >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Someone asked me this and made me thinking about it. While HIP
> > > > >> process
> > > > >>>>> covers concrete proposals to Hudi, sometimes we may need to
> just
> > > > >> write
> > > > >>> up
> > > > >>>>> some ideas and solicit comments (e.g HudiLink
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.apache.org_confluence_display_HUDI_Hudi-2Bfor-2BContinuous-2BDeep-2BAnalytics&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=BtmOFE9z1baBO8A7gX7xN4a_-bJ8W97q2GBCg2HecaA&e=
> > > > >>>>> )
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Request-5Ffor-5FComments&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=939DidQWDsxU0ERbE2lGD3Jjj5iwqKc8d4_TyoPWaJ8&e=
> > > > >>> RFCs are used for
> > > > >>>>> defining, reasoning about Internet standards.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I would like to propose that
> > > > >>>>> - we can rename the HIP process to RFC, with an additional
> > use-case
> > > > >> of
> > > > >>>>> covering docs written purely for discussion/feedback. For e.g,
> > > Flink
> > > > >>>>> support thread was dense to follow, someone could have used a
> > > > >> document
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>> fully present their ideas (we will still keep discussion on
> > mailing
> > > > >>>> list).
> > > > >>>>> - While I concede renaming may be cosmetic, RFC (Request For
> > > > >> Comments)
> > > > >>>> has
> > > > >>>>> a broader scope, which I like. :)
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename HIP process to RFC
Posted by Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org>.
Good point. Even for HIP we initially had gdoc as the starting point and
once ratified we planned to move it to cwiki. But practical issues like
retaining formatting, porting over diagrams, version history between two
things made it cumbersome. So IMO single place is actually good. Wdyt?
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 5:02 AM vino yang <ya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 agree Thomas:
>
> For some general ideas, we can write gdoc and open a "DISCUSS" ML thread.
>
> Best,
> Vino
>
> Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> 于2019年10月22日周二 下午12:45写道：
>
> > Just in case that wasn't considered: Not every document needs to be on
> > cwiki, it is perfectly fine to write up ideas that are not a formal "HIP"
> > in gdocs or similar.
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:40 PM Nishith <n3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Encourages folks to read and write designs/ideas.
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > > On Oct 21, 2019, at 6:30 PM, leesf <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Leesf
> > > >
> > > > <vb...@apache.org> 于2019年10月22日周二 上午3:40写道：
> > > >
> > > >> +1
> > > >>
> > > >> Balaji.V On Monday, October 21, 2019, 11:38:01 AM PDT, Y. Ethan
> > Guo
> > > >> <gu...@uber.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> +1 on RFC. It's good to have a few pages of RFC to get a quick look
> > of
> > > an
> > > >> idea. It doesn't have to be a full standard like some IETF RFCs.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:31 AM Taher Koitawala <taherk77@gmail.com
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Agree Vinoth +1
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Regards,
> > > >>> Taher Koitawala
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 5:49 PM Bhavani Sudha <
> bhavanisudhas@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> +1 on RFC. Makes sense to me.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 8:29 PM Vinoth Chandar <vinoth@apache.org
> >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Someone asked me this and made me thinking about it. While HIP
> > > >> process
> > > >>>>> covers concrete proposals to Hudi, sometimes we may need to just
> > > >> write
> > > >>> up
> > > >>>>> some ideas and solicit comments (e.g HudiLink
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.apache.org_confluence_display_HUDI_Hudi-2Bfor-2BContinuous-2BDeep-2BAnalytics&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=BtmOFE9z1baBO8A7gX7xN4a_-bJ8W97q2GBCg2HecaA&e=
> > > >>>>> )
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Request-5Ffor-5FComments&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=939DidQWDsxU0ERbE2lGD3Jjj5iwqKc8d4_TyoPWaJ8&e=
> > > >>> RFCs are used for
> > > >>>>> defining, reasoning about Internet standards.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I would like to propose that
> > > >>>>> - we can rename the HIP process to RFC, with an additional
> use-case
> > > >> of
> > > >>>>> covering docs written purely for discussion/feedback. For e.g,
> > Flink
> > > >>>>> support thread was dense to follow, someone could have used a
> > > >> document
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>> fully present their ideas (we will still keep discussion on
> mailing
> > > >>>> list).
> > > >>>>> - While I concede renaming may be cosmetic, RFC (Request For
> > > >> Comments)
> > > >>>> has
> > > >>>>> a broader scope, which I like. :)
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename HIP process to RFC
Posted by vino yang <ya...@gmail.com>.
+1 agree Thomas:
For some general ideas, we can write gdoc and open a "DISCUSS" ML thread.
Best,
Vino
Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> 于2019年10月22日周二 下午12:45写道：
> Just in case that wasn't considered: Not every document needs to be on
> cwiki, it is perfectly fine to write up ideas that are not a formal "HIP"
> in gdocs or similar.
>
> Thomas
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:40 PM Nishith <n3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Encourages folks to read and write designs/ideas.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Oct 21, 2019, at 6:30 PM, leesf <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Leesf
> > >
> > > <vb...@apache.org> 于2019年10月22日周二 上午3:40写道：
> > >
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> Balaji.V On Monday, October 21, 2019, 11:38:01 AM PDT, Y. Ethan
> Guo
> > >> <gu...@uber.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +1 on RFC. It's good to have a few pages of RFC to get a quick look
> of
> > an
> > >> idea. It doesn't have to be a full standard like some IETF RFCs.
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:31 AM Taher Koitawala <ta...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Agree Vinoth +1
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> Taher Koitawala
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 5:49 PM Bhavani Sudha <bhavanisudhas@gmail.com
> >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> +1 on RFC. Makes sense to me.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 8:29 PM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Someone asked me this and made me thinking about it. While HIP
> > >> process
> > >>>>> covers concrete proposals to Hudi, sometimes we may need to just
> > >> write
> > >>> up
> > >>>>> some ideas and solicit comments (e.g HudiLink
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.apache.org_confluence_display_HUDI_Hudi-2Bfor-2BContinuous-2BDeep-2BAnalytics&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=BtmOFE9z1baBO8A7gX7xN4a_-bJ8W97q2GBCg2HecaA&e=
> > >>>>> )
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Request-5Ffor-5FComments&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=939DidQWDsxU0ERbE2lGD3Jjj5iwqKc8d4_TyoPWaJ8&e=
> > >>> RFCs are used for
> > >>>>> defining, reasoning about Internet standards.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I would like to propose that
> > >>>>> - we can rename the HIP process to RFC, with an additional use-case
> > >> of
> > >>>>> covering docs written purely for discussion/feedback. For e.g,
> Flink
> > >>>>> support thread was dense to follow, someone could have used a
> > >> document
> > >>> to
> > >>>>> fully present their ideas (we will still keep discussion on mailing
> > >>>> list).
> > >>>>> - While I concede renaming may be cosmetic, RFC (Request For
> > >> Comments)
> > >>>> has
> > >>>>> a broader scope, which I like. :)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename HIP process to RFC
Posted by Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org>.
Just in case that wasn't considered: Not every document needs to be on
cwiki, it is perfectly fine to write up ideas that are not a formal "HIP"
in gdocs or similar.
Thomas
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:40 PM Nishith <n3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> Encourages folks to read and write designs/ideas.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Oct 21, 2019, at 6:30 PM, leesf <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Best,
> > Leesf
> >
> > <vb...@apache.org> 于2019年10月22日周二 上午3:40写道：
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Balaji.V On Monday, October 21, 2019, 11:38:01 AM PDT, Y. Ethan Guo
> >> <gu...@uber.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1 on RFC. It's good to have a few pages of RFC to get a quick look of
> an
> >> idea. It doesn't have to be a full standard like some IETF RFCs.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:31 AM Taher Koitawala <ta...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Agree Vinoth +1
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Taher Koitawala
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 5:49 PM Bhavani Sudha <bh...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> +1 on RFC. Makes sense to me.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 8:29 PM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Someone asked me this and made me thinking about it. While HIP
> >> process
> >>>>> covers concrete proposals to Hudi, sometimes we may need to just
> >> write
> >>> up
> >>>>> some ideas and solicit comments (e.g HudiLink
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.apache.org_confluence_display_HUDI_Hudi-2Bfor-2BContinuous-2BDeep-2BAnalytics&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=BtmOFE9z1baBO8A7gX7xN4a_-bJ8W97q2GBCg2HecaA&e=
> >>>>> )
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Request-5Ffor-5FComments&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=939DidQWDsxU0ERbE2lGD3Jjj5iwqKc8d4_TyoPWaJ8&e=
> >>> RFCs are used for
> >>>>> defining, reasoning about Internet standards.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would like to propose that
> >>>>> - we can rename the HIP process to RFC, with an additional use-case
> >> of
> >>>>> covering docs written purely for discussion/feedback. For e.g, Flink
> >>>>> support thread was dense to follow, someone could have used a
> >> document
> >>> to
> >>>>> fully present their ideas (we will still keep discussion on mailing
> >>>> list).
> >>>>> - While I concede renaming may be cosmetic, RFC (Request For
> >> Comments)
> >>>> has
> >>>>> a broader scope, which I like. :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename HIP process to RFC
Posted by Nishith <n3...@gmail.com>.
+1
Encourages folks to read and write designs/ideas.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 21, 2019, at 6:30 PM, leesf <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Best,
> Leesf
>
> <vb...@apache.org> 于2019年10月22日周二 上午3:40写道：
>
>> +1
>>
>> Balaji.V On Monday, October 21, 2019, 11:38:01 AM PDT, Y. Ethan Guo
>> <gu...@uber.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> +1 on RFC. It's good to have a few pages of RFC to get a quick look of an
>> idea. It doesn't have to be a full standard like some IETF RFCs.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:31 AM Taher Koitawala <ta...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Agree Vinoth +1
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Taher Koitawala
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 5:49 PM Bhavani Sudha <bh...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 on RFC. Makes sense to me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 8:29 PM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Someone asked me this and made me thinking about it. While HIP
>> process
>>>>> covers concrete proposals to Hudi, sometimes we may need to just
>> write
>>> up
>>>>> some ideas and solicit comments (e.g HudiLink
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.apache.org_confluence_display_HUDI_Hudi-2Bfor-2BContinuous-2BDeep-2BAnalytics&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=BtmOFE9z1baBO8A7gX7xN4a_-bJ8W97q2GBCg2HecaA&e=
>>>>> )
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Request-5Ffor-5FComments&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=939DidQWDsxU0ERbE2lGD3Jjj5iwqKc8d4_TyoPWaJ8&e=
>>> RFCs are used for
>>>>> defining, reasoning about Internet standards.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to propose that
>>>>> - we can rename the HIP process to RFC, with an additional use-case
>> of
>>>>> covering docs written purely for discussion/feedback. For e.g, Flink
>>>>> support thread was dense to follow, someone could have used a
>> document
>>> to
>>>>> fully present their ideas (we will still keep discussion on mailing
>>>> list).
>>>>> - While I concede renaming may be cosmetic, RFC (Request For
>> Comments)
>>>> has
>>>>> a broader scope, which I like. :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename HIP process to RFC
Posted by leesf <le...@gmail.com>.
+1
Best,
Leesf
<vb...@apache.org> 于2019年10月22日周二 上午3:40写道：
> +1
>
> Balaji.V On Monday, October 21, 2019, 11:38:01 AM PDT, Y. Ethan Guo
> <gu...@uber.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> +1 on RFC. It's good to have a few pages of RFC to get a quick look of an
> idea. It doesn't have to be a full standard like some IETF RFCs.
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:31 AM Taher Koitawala <ta...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Agree Vinoth +1
> >
> > Regards,
> > Taher Koitawala
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 5:49 PM Bhavani Sudha <bh...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 on RFC. Makes sense to me.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 8:29 PM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Someone asked me this and made me thinking about it. While HIP
> process
> > > > covers concrete proposals to Hudi, sometimes we may need to just
> write
> > up
> > > > some ideas and solicit comments (e.g HudiLink
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.apache.org_confluence_display_HUDI_Hudi-2Bfor-2BContinuous-2BDeep-2BAnalytics&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=BtmOFE9z1baBO8A7gX7xN4a_-bJ8W97q2GBCg2HecaA&e=
> > > > )
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Request-5Ffor-5FComments&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=939DidQWDsxU0ERbE2lGD3Jjj5iwqKc8d4_TyoPWaJ8&e=
> > RFCs are used for
> > > > defining, reasoning about Internet standards.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to propose that
> > > > - we can rename the HIP process to RFC, with an additional use-case
> of
> > > > covering docs written purely for discussion/feedback. For e.g, Flink
> > > > support thread was dense to follow, someone could have used a
> document
> > to
> > > > fully present their ideas (we will still keep discussion on mailing
> > > list).
> > > > - While I concede renaming may be cosmetic, RFC (Request For
> Comments)
> > > has
> > > > a broader scope, which I like. :)
> > > >
> > >
> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename HIP process to RFC
Posted by vb...@apache.org.
+1
Balaji.V On Monday, October 21, 2019, 11:38:01 AM PDT, Y. Ethan Guo <gu...@uber.com.INVALID> wrote:
+1 on RFC. It's good to have a few pages of RFC to get a quick look of an
idea. It doesn't have to be a full standard like some IETF RFCs.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:31 AM Taher Koitawala <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agree Vinoth +1
>
> Regards,
> Taher Koitawala
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 5:49 PM Bhavani Sudha <bh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 on RFC. Makes sense to me.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 8:29 PM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Someone asked me this and made me thinking about it. While HIP process
> > > covers concrete proposals to Hudi, sometimes we may need to just write
> up
> > > some ideas and solicit comments (e.g HudiLink
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.apache.org_confluence_display_HUDI_Hudi-2Bfor-2BContinuous-2BDeep-2BAnalytics&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=BtmOFE9z1baBO8A7gX7xN4a_-bJ8W97q2GBCg2HecaA&e=
> > > )
> > >
> > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Request-5Ffor-5FComments&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=939DidQWDsxU0ERbE2lGD3Jjj5iwqKc8d4_TyoPWaJ8&e=
> RFCs are used for
> > > defining, reasoning about Internet standards.
> > >
> > > I would like to propose that
> > > - we can rename the HIP process to RFC, with an additional use-case of
> > > covering docs written purely for discussion/feedback. For e.g, Flink
> > > support thread was dense to follow, someone could have used a document
> to
> > > fully present their ideas (we will still keep discussion on mailing
> > list).
> > > - While I concede renaming may be cosmetic, RFC (Request For Comments)
> > has
> > > a broader scope, which I like. :)
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename HIP process to RFC
Posted by "Y. Ethan Guo" <gu...@uber.com.INVALID>.
+1 on RFC. It's good to have a few pages of RFC to get a quick look of an
idea. It doesn't have to be a full standard like some IETF RFCs.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:31 AM Taher Koitawala <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agree Vinoth +1
>
> Regards,
> Taher Koitawala
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 5:49 PM Bhavani Sudha <bh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 on RFC. Makes sense to me.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 8:29 PM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Someone asked me this and made me thinking about it. While HIP process
> > > covers concrete proposals to Hudi, sometimes we may need to just write
> up
> > > some ideas and solicit comments (e.g HudiLink
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.apache.org_confluence_display_HUDI_Hudi-2Bfor-2BContinuous-2BDeep-2BAnalytics&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=BtmOFE9z1baBO8A7gX7xN4a_-bJ8W97q2GBCg2HecaA&e=
> > > )
> > >
> > >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Request-5Ffor-5FComments&d=DwIBaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=z456dQQXMUCz1m72nlkFQpylUpdOVMBG38x2peG1m44&m=_sDvLQTlJhoOFYHtyXSz--G9D5S7gGSf-mzLhY6PSbg&s=939DidQWDsxU0ERbE2lGD3Jjj5iwqKc8d4_TyoPWaJ8&e=
> RFCs are used for
> > > defining, reasoning about Internet standards.
> > >
> > > I would like to propose that
> > > - we can rename the HIP process to RFC, with an additional use-case of
> > > covering docs written purely for discussion/feedback. For e.g, Flink
> > > support thread was dense to follow, someone could have used a document
> to
> > > fully present their ideas (we will still keep discussion on mailing
> > list).
> > > - While I concede renaming may be cosmetic, RFC (Request For Comments)
> > has
> > > a broader scope, which I like. :)
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename HIP process to RFC
Posted by Taher Koitawala <ta...@gmail.com>.
Agree Vinoth +1
Regards,
Taher Koitawala
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 5:49 PM Bhavani Sudha <bh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 on RFC. Makes sense to me.
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 8:29 PM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Someone asked me this and made me thinking about it. While HIP process
> > covers concrete proposals to Hudi, sometimes we may need to just write up
> > some ideas and solicit comments (e.g HudiLink
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HUDI/Hudi+for+Continuous+Deep+Analytics
> > )
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments RFCs are used for
> > defining, reasoning about Internet standards.
> >
> > I would like to propose that
> > - we can rename the HIP process to RFC, with an additional use-case of
> > covering docs written purely for discussion/feedback. For e.g, Flink
> > support thread was dense to follow, someone could have used a document to
> > fully present their ideas (we will still keep discussion on mailing
> list).
> > - While I concede renaming may be cosmetic, RFC (Request For Comments)
> has
> > a broader scope, which I like. :)
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Rename HIP process to RFC
Posted by Bhavani Sudha <bh...@gmail.com>.
+1 on RFC. Makes sense to me.
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 8:29 PM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Someone asked me this and made me thinking about it. While HIP process
> covers concrete proposals to Hudi, sometimes we may need to just write up
> some ideas and solicit comments (e.g HudiLink
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HUDI/Hudi+for+Continuous+Deep+Analytics
> )
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments RFCs are used for
> defining, reasoning about Internet standards.
>
> I would like to propose that
> - we can rename the HIP process to RFC, with an additional use-case of
> covering docs written purely for discussion/feedback. For e.g, Flink
> support thread was dense to follow, someone could have used a document to
> fully present their ideas (we will still keep discussion on mailing list).
> - While I concede renaming may be cosmetic, RFC (Request For Comments) has
> a broader scope, which I like. :)
>