Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Avro >> mail # dev >> Avro governance and Avro Enhancement Proposals

Copy link to this message
Re: Avro governance and Avro Enhancement Proposals
I'm -0: I actually really like the fact that there is one spec, and that
it's the source of truth.  Since Python is being brought up as an example,
I'll mention that my experience is that it's incredibly annoying to run into
some documentation, and it points you to some proposal, and then you have to
decipher what was proposed from what was implemented.

I think we're still small and lightweight enough that JIRA and the mailing
list are sufficient for circulating most proposals.

-- Philip

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Bruce Mitchener

> Hello all,
> I had some discussions with cutting recently about moving to an AEP (Avro
> Enhancement Proposal) process for Avro, similar to the PEP process for
> Python (http://www.python.org/dev/peps/).  PEP-0001 (
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/) should give a pretty good (but
> longer) description of this process.
> In short, major and important changes would be put forward as an AEP.  An
> AEP would have an editor who owned the document, worked to build consensus
> and shepherds the document to approval.  Approval of an AEP would be done
> via a vote of the PMC.
> AEPs could be changes to the implemenations or the processes surrounding
> Avro development (like how we format source code, how we handle code
> reviews, how we perform releases, etc).
> AEPs could be managed in the wiki or in Subversion and published to the
> website.  I'm interested in hearing what people think in this area.  I'm
> somewhat partial to managing them in Subversion as that:
>  * Puts the history in one spot.
>  * Allows us to update AEPs with the same patch as implementing a new
> feature in the code.
>  * Keeps things under the appropriate licensing and approval processes that
> we have now, especially since anyone can edit the wiki.
> As part of this, I think that it makes sense to break some things out of
> the
> specification and out of their current locations on the website:
>  * GenAvro IDL should become a new AEP.
>  * An AEP should be written to describe container files and that can be
> removed from the spec.
>  * RPC mechanisms should be AEPs rather than part of the core spec.
> As part of this, if each AEP lists which implementations support the given
> AEP, it would also help solve the issue being discussed in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-358 (specifying levels of the
> Avro implementations).
> Thoughts?
>  - Bruce