sqoop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gwen Shapira <gshap...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Discussing solutions to Sqoop1 and Sqoop2 confusion (was: Code name for Sqoop 2)
Date Mon, 11 Aug 2014 16:19:41 GMT
Thanks to everyone contributing to the discussion.

I think it makes sense to mark Sqoop2 as Sqoop-1.99.3-prerelease and
make our site a bit clearer about its lack of backward compatibility.

If this doesn't help - we can re-visit the rename idea.

How about taking the following steps:
- Change the blurb on our front page from:
"Latest stable release is 1.4.4 (download, documentation). Latest cut
of Sqoop2 is 1.99.3 (download, documentation)."

to:
"Latest stable release is 1.4.4 (download, documentation). Latest
experimental release is 1.99.3 (download, documentation) - Note that
1.99.3 is not compatible with 1.4.4 and not feature complete."

- Change all references to 1.99.3 to "1.99.3-prerelease"

- Add clarifications in Sqoop2 docs that Sqoop1 parameters and
connectors are not supported.

- I'd like to also change the name of our Sqoop2 shell client to
something less confusing, but can't think of anything good here :)

What do you think?

Gwen


On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Kathleen Ting <kathleen@apache.org> wrote:
> Agreed with David and Arvind that codenames can be confusing to new users.
>
> +1 on option 4 which is a combination of the following:
> (a) following Apache Hadoop precedence and calling it Sqoop-1.99.3-prerelease
> (b) putting a disclaimer that Sqoop-1.99.3-prerelease is not intended
> for production deployment on its download link
> (c) using explicit UI messaging to warn Sqoop-1.99.3-prerelease users
> that it does not have feature parity with Sqoop1
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 6:39 PM, David Robson
> <David.Robson@software.dell.com> wrote:
>> So it seems like the problem we are trying to solve is for a new user, they download
Sqoop 1.99.3 - have bad experiences because it is still experimental (based on recent mail
threads this may put them off Sqoop for good). So we should make it as easy as possible to
download the correct version of Sqoop for them.
>>
>> I believe for a new user - codenames cause more confusion. Assuming a user knew nothing
about Sqoop and was given the choice of Sqoop 1.4.5 or Sqoop Pelican - how would they know
which one to choose? Now if they were given the choice of Sqoop 1.4.5 or Sqoop 1.99.3-alpha
- it would be much more obvious. Of course either way you could put some text on the homepage
/ download page explaining the two releases which should be done either way.
>>
>> I don't think we should add to the confusion by bringing in codenames - and instead
stick with the industry standard alpha / beta / stable terminology as Arvind suggested.
>>
>> So I would vote on option 2 - and we should put a warning like "not intended for
production deployment" on the link to download Sqoop 1.99.3-alpha.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Abraham Elmahrek [mailto:abe@cloudera.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, 2 August 2014 6:01 AM
>> To: dev@sqoop.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Discussing solutions to Sqoop1 and Sqoop2 confusion (was: Code name
for Sqoop 2)
>>
>> +1 for proposal 1 as well.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Venkat Ranganathan < vranganathan@hortonworks.com>
wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for propsal 1 also
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Venkat
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <jarcec@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> > I don’t have any other suggestion either, so let’s discuss which one
>>> would people prefer?
>>> >
>>> > I’m personally in favor of proposal 1).
>>> >
>>> > Jarcec
>>> >
>>> > On Jul 28, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Gwen Shapira <gshapira@cloudera.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Thanks for the great summary. I don't have additional suggestions.
>>> >>
>>> >> Gwen
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Arvind Prabhakar
>>> >> <arvind@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>> Thanks Gwen and Jarcec. It appears that we all agree to the few
>>> >>> basic points below:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> a) Sqoop2 is promising effort although not near completion. We
>>> >>> agree
>>> that
>>> >>> there is no need to discuss shutting that down at this time.
>>> >>> b) The naming of Sqoop2 is such that it raises expectations in
>>> >>> users/adopters to be better than Sqoop(1) and thus leads to confusion.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The second point (b) above is the key issue that needs resolution.
>>> >>> The options discussed thus far are as follows:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 1. Put a code name for Sqoop2 so that it is not confused with Sqoop(1).
>>> >>> This seems to have good community support.
>>> >>> 2. Use a explicit labels such as "stable" vs "beta/alpha/experimental"
>>> for
>>> >>> various Sqoop releases.
>>> >>> 3. Use explicit UI messaging to warn Sqoop2 users that it is not
>>> >>> the
>>> same
>>> >>> as Sqoop(1) and is far behind on feature completeness and stability.
>>> There
>>> >>> seems to be some concerns around how this can be done given the
>>> >>> client/server architecture of Sqoop2.
>>> >>> 4. A combination of options 2 and 3 above.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Are there any suggestions to mitigate this problem? Perhaps we
>>> >>> should cross-post this thread to user list as well to see if they
>>> >>> agree with
>>> the
>>> >>> options here and/or if they have any other suggestions.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Regards,
>>> >>> Arvind Prabhakar
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho
>>> >>> <jarcec@apache.org
>>> >
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Hi Arvind,
>>> >>>> thank you very much for sharing your concerns! You’ve risen
a
>>> >>>> very
>>> good
>>> >>>> points.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I personally see value in Sqoop 2 as the new architecture will
>>> >>>> allow
>>> us to
>>> >>>> cover much more use cases, various compliancy regulations and
>>> >>>> will eventually simplify user’s life. Based on the recent
>>> >>>> increase in dev activity, it seems that I’m not the only one
who
>>> >>>> do believes in that
>>> and
>>> >>>> hence I strongly believe that discontinuing the effort doesn’t
>>> >>>> seem
>>> as the
>>> >>>> right way to go. I’m more then happy to discuss this topic
>>> >>>> further if
>>> you
>>> >>>> believe that it’s the right way though.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Having said that I do believe in Sqoop 2, I have to second Gwen
>>> >>>> that current situation is very confusing to our users. I’ve
seen
>>> significant
>>> >>>> number of users confused about why 1.99.4 do not have
>>> >>>> Avro/HBase/Hive integration when Sqoop 1 already have that.
I was
>>> >>>> anticipating the confusion and hence I’ve suggested to use
>>> >>>> version number 1.99.x
>>> instead of
>>> >>>> 2.0.0 back when we were working on getting the first cut out
of
>>> >>>> the
>>> door. I
>>> >>>> hoped that version 1.99.x will make obvious to everybody that
>>> >>>> it’s not “2.0.0” quite yet. Sadly it seems that this alone
did
>>> >>>> not helped as
>>> much as
>>> >>>> I hoped.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Hence I do see value in changing our public messaging as you’ve
>>> suggested
>>> >>>> to make the message more clearer. I personally like the idea
with
>>> code name
>>> >>>> as that is quite popular in other projects and companies
>>> >>>> (remember
>>> Windows
>>> >>>> Longorn?) and it seems to be conveying the message. I do see
a
>>> >>>> lot of variability of using that code name though - I don’t
think
>>> >>>> that we necessarily have to remove any possible reference to
>>> >>>> “Sqoop 2” from
>>> the
>>> >>>> face of earth. I believe that the code name is very well suited
>>> >>>> for
>>> our
>>> >>>> webpage, wiki and perhaps a blog posts to make obvious that
there
>>> >>>> is
>>> just
>>> >>>> one single stable Sqoop version and then some ongoing effort
that
>>> >>>> do
>>> have
>>> >>>> available several cuts. I believe that just by doing that we
will
>>> decrease
>>> >>>> confusion about what version should user download and use. We
can
>>> discuss
>>> >>>> to what extent we want to push the code name and to what extent
>>> >>>> we
>>> will
>>> >>>> keep the reference to “Sqoop 2”. After all I’m confident
that in
>>> >>>> not
>>> too
>>> >>>> distant future, we will have Sqoop 2  that will offer the
>>> >>>> comparable capability and features as Sqoop 1.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I don’t think that the code name is the only idea that will
>>> >>>> decrease
>>> the
>>> >>>> immediate user confusion and hence I’m happy to hear others
thoughts!
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Jarcec
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Jul 26, 2014, at 6:00 PM, Gwen Shapira <gshapira@cloudera.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> Thanks Arvind for your detailed explanation.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I agree that naming releases stable and alpha is a good
idea. I
>>> >>>>> don't agree that it will solve the issue, but we can't know
until we try.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Considering that Sqoop2 is intentionally a client-server
>>> >>>>> architecture with multiple clients and a REST API as an
>>> >>>>> additional access point, I believe that it is not feasible
to mark UI as beta.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I want to stress that I personally believe that Sqoop2 is
a very
>>> >>>>> viable branch effort, to the extent that I am actively
>>> >>>>> contributing
>>> to
>>> >>>>> it.
>>> >>>>> As Sqoop2 becomes more and more viable alternative to Sqoop1,
we
>>> >>>>> need to prepare, as a community, to support both versions.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Considering the number of features currently in Sqoop1 and
the
>>> >>>>> number of production Sqoop1 users, I can see us supporting
both
>>> >>>>> versions for the next 2 years. Making it easy for the community
>>> >>>>> to support both is my top concern here. Having to resolve
>>> >>>>> endless confusions for two years doesn't seem like a happy
>>> >>>>> future to me. I see the Python community fighting the same
issue
>>> >>>>> since they broke compatibility between versions 2 and 3.
I'd
>>> >>>>> like to see us learn from those
>>> mistakes
>>> >>>>> and do better.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I agree that a discussion would have been better than a
vote. I
>>> >>>>> was under the mistaken impression that there is a consensus
on
>>> >>>>> the
>>> matter.
>>> >>>>> I renamed the thread to make it clear that we are interested
in
>>> >>>>> hearing opinions from the rest of the community on this
subject.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Bike-sheddingly yours,
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Gwen Shapira
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Arvind Prabhakar
>>> >>>>> <arvind@apache.org
>>> >
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the detailed pointers Gwen. I understand
your
>>> >>>>>> concerns
>>> better
>>> >>>>>> now. My understanding from these threads as well as
what you
>>> >>>>>> have
>>> >>>> described
>>> >>>>>> is that the confusion you refer to stems from the fact
that
>>> >>>>>> Sqoop2
>>> is
>>> >>>> not
>>> >>>>>> at feature parity with Sqoop(1) yet.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> It will be great to *discuss* what are the various ways
to
>>> >>>>>> address
>>> this
>>> >>>> and
>>> >>>>>> then call a vote to decide upon the approach to use.
Some other
>>> >>>> approaches
>>> >>>>>> that I can suggest are:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> 1. Calling Sqoop1 explicitly as "stable" in our downloads
>>> >>>>>> section,
>>> or
>>> >>>> even
>>> >>>>>> within the release label. So instead of Sqoop-1.4.5,
it would
>>> >>>>>> be Sqoop-1.4.5-stable.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> 2. Alternatively calling Sqoop2 explicitly "alpha",
"beta" or
>>> >>>>>> "experimental". Eg - Sqoop-1.99.4 would become Sqoop-1.99.4-beta.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> 3. Or perhaps a combination of both of these.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> 4. Plus good UI messaging that clearly outlines the
critical
>>> differences
>>> >>>>>> between these to products.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Personally, I do not believe that having a code name
will solve
>>> >>>>>> the
>>> >>>> issue
>>> >>>>>> at hand, and may even make it worse. If the motivation
is to
>>> >>>>>> call
>>> out
>>> >>>>>> Sqoop2 as something "not-Sqoop", then perhaps we should
discuss
>>> >>>>>> the viability of this branch effort. If we conclude
that it is
>>> >>>>>> not
>>> going to
>>> >>>>>> progress any further, we could call a vote on discontinuing
>>> >>>>>> this
>>> effort
>>> >>>> and
>>> >>>>>> instead focusing on the main Sqoop1 branch alone.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Hope you understand my point of view on this.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Regards,
>>> >>>>>> Arvind Prabhakar
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gwen Shapira <
>>> gshapira@cloudera.com>
>>> >>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Hi Arvind,
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Here are few more threads from the last month where
we had to
>>> explain
>>> >>>>>>> Sqoop2 status or explain that you can't use "sqoop
import"
>>> >>>>>>> with Sqoop2, etc:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/sqoop-user/201407.mbox/%3CCA%
>>> 2BP7NPNTFuPYqf74M5OFw4e9xKZm2ns%3DZ0ydkkuJ06Jcg31hnw%40mail.gmail.com%
>>> 3E
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/sqoop-user/201407.mbox/%3CCAA
>>> J8D%3D9Ho%3DYH7jdavNAb1gwz19Z5dapmS98yR71KmM5LsjCEVw%40mail.gmail.com%
>>> 3E
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/sqoop-user/201407.mbox/%3CCAP
>>> wc21YtdgAm9jO3%2Bs0asBZ2JkG%3DVCp5PLpkO5xQuuBPKQGuTw%40mail.gmail.com%
>>> 3E
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/sqoop-user/201406.mbox/%3CCAO
>>> rS3pxWuxL1X9Sb816N_o1Jd==gs9Ww6UjE2PO+FPaw7VHw1Q@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> In addition, I noticed the problem when talking
to users in
>>> >>>>>>> conferences, customers, members of support team,
etc (not to
>>> mention
>>> >>>>>>> that I got confused personally when I started out.)
I didn't
>>> >>>>>>> bring much evidence in my first email because I
thought
>>> there
>>> >>>>>>> was a wide consensus about the problem.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> I have several goals with the code-name:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> * We need to remove the impression that the new
version is
>>> >>>>>>> like
>>> Sqoop
>>> >>>>>>> only better. It is only somewhat like Sqoop and
will not be
>>> strictly
>>> >>>>>>> better for many months yet.
>>> >>>>>>> * We need to clarify that this project is not even
close to
>>> production
>>> >>>>>>> quality.
>>> >>>>>>> * We need to make it easy for us to quickly figure
out which
>>> version
>>> >>>>>>> the user is talking about. We also need to make
it easy for
>>> >>>>>>> the
>>> users
>>> >>>>>>> to describe what they are using.
>>> >>>>>>> * We want to have fun :)
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> I think the name Pelican Project will help with
all goals:
>>> >>>>>>> - It is clearly not the same as Sqoop. So there's
no existing
>>> >>>>>>> expectations on what will be supported.
>>> >>>>>>> - It is a "Project" and not a product yet.
>>> >>>>>>> - Sqoop and Pelican don't look or sound similar.
No one can
>>> >>>>>>> expect
>>> to
>>> >>>>>>> use Sqoop by running "pelican-shell" or to use Pelican
by
>>> >>>>>>> calling "sqoop import".
>>> >>>>>>> - And a cute mascot will make every future presentation
and
>>> >>>>>>> blog
>>> post
>>> >>>>>>> on the topic much more fun.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> You do bring up good points of concern:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> a) Existing releases: I disagree code-names for
in-progress
>>> >>>>>>> development cause too much confusion. They seem
fairly common
>>> >>>>>>> in
>>> the
>>> >>>>>>> software world.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> http://royal.pingdom.com/2010/05/27/the-developer-obsession-with-code-
>>> names-114-interesting-examples/
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> b) "could impact the reproducibility of previous
release
>>> >>>>>>> builds
>>> which
>>> >>>>>>> is not very good for the project."
>>> >>>>>>> This sounds fairly serious. Can you elaborate what
you mean by
>>> >>>>>>> reproducibility of release build?
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Gwen
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Arvind Prabhakar
<
>>> arvind@apache.org>
>>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Gwen,
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Other than the recent thread [1] on our user
list, is there
>>> >>>>>>>> any
>>> other
>>> >>>>>>>> precedent regarding the confusion this issue
has caused? If
>>> >>>>>>>> so, I
>>> >>>> would
>>> >>>>>>>> appreciate if you could point it out.
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Personally, I do agree that we ought to have
a better
>>> >>>>>>>> mechanism to communicate the completeness (or
incompleteness)
>>> >>>>>>>> of a release in
>>> >>>> order to
>>> >>>>>>>> ensure the users understand what benefits or
drawbacks they
>>> >>>>>>>> may
>>> get.
>>> >>>>>>>> Incidentally, this was the primary reason for
numbering the
>>> >>>>>>>> Sqoop2
>>> >>>>>>> release
>>> >>>>>>>> as 1.99.x, thereby indicating that the release
is not quite
>>> >>>>>>>> 2.0
>>> yet,
>>> >>>>>>> which
>>> >>>>>>>> seems to be not working as well as expected.
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> One traditional way to alleviate this issue
would be to label
>>> >>>>>>>> the
>>> >>>> release
>>> >>>>>>>> alpha/beta etc. I prefer doing that instead
of putting a code
>>> name for
>>> >>>>>>> the
>>> >>>>>>>> release for a couple of reasons - a) we have
already made
>>> releases of
>>> >>>>>>>> Sqoop2 with the previous versioning scheme and
hence changing
>>> >>>>>>>> the
>>> name
>>> >>>>>>>> could cause more confusion; and b) renaming
the branches to
>>> >>>>>>>> the
>>> new
>>> >>>> name
>>> >>>>>>>> could impact the reproducibility of previous
release builds
>>> >>>>>>>> which
>>> is
>>> >>>> not
>>> >>>>>>>> very good for the project.
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Another alternative to consider would be to
have very clear
>>> messaging
>>> >>>> in
>>> >>>>>>>> the user-interface of Sqoop2 that it is still
work in
>>> >>>>>>>> progress
>>> and not
>>> >>>>>>>> considered at par with Sqoop1.
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> [1] http://s.apache.org/TvD
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Regards,
>>> >>>>>>>> Arvind Prabhakar
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Venkat Ranganathan
<
>>> >>>>>>>> vranganathan@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 for Pelican.   But documentation should
not be called The
>>> Pelican
>>> >>>>>>> Brief
>>> >>>>>>>>> :)
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Venkat
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Abraham
Elmahrek <
>>> abe@cloudera.com>
>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>> There's something about schlep (or schlepper)
that I'm
>>> >>>>>>>>>> having
>>> >>>> trouble
>>> >>>>>>>>>> resisting... but... +1 to Pelican.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Jarek
Jarcec Cecho <
>>> >>>>>>> jarcec@apache.org>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I’m obviously biased, but +1 to
Pelican.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jarcec
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 24, 2014, at 7:06 PM, Martin,
Nick
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <NiMartin@pssd.com>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Pelican
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Gwen Shapira [mailto:gshapira@cloudera.com]
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014
9:51 PM
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@sqoop.apache.org
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Code name for Sqoop
2 (please vote!)
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As you may have noticed on the
user list, Sqoop2 confuses
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>> hell
>>> >>>>>>> out
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> of everyone.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem is the name
- Sqoop2 sounds newer and
>>> >>>> therefore
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> better. People expect better quality
and more features -
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> which
>>> we
>>> >>>>>>> don't
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> deliver :(
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, I propose finding
Sqoop2 a project code name.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>> way
>>> >>>>>>> it
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> will sound experimental and will
not have the number "2"
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> next
>>> to
>>> >>>> it.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We can use the code name to
mark the branches in the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> repo, the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> documentation, the Hue frontend,
etc. This will prevent
>>> confusion
>>> >>>> as
>>> >>>>>>> the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> name Sqoop will go back to refer
to just one project, and
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> one
>>> that
>>> >>>>>>>>> actually
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> works.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Suggested names:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Project Pelican (Based on the
animal on O'Reilly's Sqoop
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> book)
>>> >>>>>>> Project
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Schlep (Yiddish for "moving heavy
package")
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Friends, contributors, committers
and PMC members -
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>> respond
>>> >>>>>>>>> with
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> either:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * Vote (+1) on one of the names
above
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * Your own suggestion
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We'll be looking to close the
vote by August 1st (Next week).
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gwen
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> --
>>> >>>>>>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
>>> >>>>>>>>> NOTICE: This message is intended for the
use of the
>>> >>>>>>>>> individual or
>>> >>>>>>> entity to
>>> >>>>>>>>> which it is addressed and may contain information
that is
>>> >>>> confidential,
>>> >>>>>>>>> privileged and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law.
>>> >>>>>>>>> If
>>> the
>>> >>>>>>> reader
>>> >>>>>>>>> of this message is not the intended recipient,
you are
>>> >>>>>>>>> hereby
>>> >>>> notified
>>> >>>>>>> that
>>> >>>>>>>>> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution,
>>> >>>>>>>>> disclosure or forwarding of this communication
is strictly
>>> >>>>>>>>> prohibited. If you
>>> have
>>> >>>>>>>>> received this communication in error, please
contact the
>>> >>>>>>>>> sender
>>> >>>>>>> immediately
>>> >>>>>>>>> and delete it from your system. Thank You.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
>>> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or
>>> entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
>>> confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable
>>> law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you
>>> are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination,
>>> distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is
>>> strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
>>> please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
>>>

Mime
View raw message