-Discussing solutions to Sqoop1 and Sqoop2 confusion (was: Code name for Sqoop 2)
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
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.
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Arvind Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: