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

Switch to Threaded View
Zookeeper >> mail # dev >> [DISCUSS] move hedwig/bookkeeper to subproject


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] move hedwig/bookkeeper to subproject
I agree about the separation of bookkeeper and hedwig. They solve very different problems, so lumping them together feels clunky. Perhaps bookkeeper could be moved out of zookeeper first, leaving hedwig in until there's more community interest in it.

-Ivan

On 15 Mar 2011, at 23:58, Dhruba Borthakur wrote:

> I am interested in contributing to the bookkeeper code. It would be nice to
> have a community around it. An incubator proposal sounds good, but the
> zk-subproject should also work well. It woud be nice to separate out hedwig
> and bookkeeper since they have quite different functionality.
>
> -dhruba
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I like the idea of BookKeeper/Hedwig being subprojects.
>>
>> thanks
>> mahadev
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Patrick Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry for not replying before. I didn't feel that the message was
>> for
>>>> me, since it should be pretty obvious that I'm interested in those
>>>> projects. Here are some thoughts, though:
>>>>
>>>> - It would be really nice to have committers for bookkeeper/hedwig;
>>>> - It would be really nice to have independent releases for
>>>> bookkeeper/hedwig;
>>>> - It sounds like bookkeeper and hedwig don't always go together, and
>> hdfs
>>>> is an instance in which it happens. But, hedwig builds on top of
>> bookkeeper
>>>> (and other components), so using hedwig implies using bookkeeper.
>>>> Consequently, if we choose only one to be a main project, perhaps
>> bookkeeper
>>>> would be a better choice;
>>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps one could argue that bk/hedwig fall under "distributed system
>>> coordination" and therefore should be part of ZK? Or is that too much of
>> a
>>> stretch? ;-)
>>>
>>> RESOLVED, that the Apache ZooKeeper Project be and hereby is responsible
>>> for the creation and maintenance of software related to distributed
>> system
>>> coordination; and be it further
>>>
>>>
>>>> - I don't think we have anyone who could be a project lead for these
>>>> projects right now, so it could be a problem to split up at this point.
>> For
>>>> this reason, a zookeeper subproject sounds like a better option compared
>> to
>>>> incubator, unless we are able to find a project lead.
>>>>
>>>> -Flavio
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
>>>>
>>>> i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and bookkeeper a
>>>> subproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in general
>>>> about all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions, in my
>>>> mind, that we need to answer to move forward:
>>>>
>>>> 1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there be two
>>>> separate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'm
>>>> wondering if we should try to build a single dev community or two. the
>>>> relationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on bookkeeper, but
>>>> not visa-versa. i'm inclined to say we do a hedwig subproject and
>>>> include bookkeeper with it, but i don't feel strongly.
>>>>
>>>> 2) should we propose a subproject to zookeeper or to incubator? i'm a
>>>> bit more inclined to propose a zookeeper subproject simply because it
>>>> fits well with the zookeeper community, but it does introduce a bit
>>>> more overhead to the zookeeper PMC.
>>>>
>>>> 3) do we have the developer interest to make it happen in the first
>>>> place? i know we can get at least 3 initial committers from yahoo!,
>>>> but projects should be represented by multiple companies. (the goal is
>>>> at least 3.) so, is there interest in working on the project from
>>>> others?
>>>>
>>>> please comment. these are all open issues, so opinions are what i'm
>>>> looking for. if there isn't much discussion, i think that will
>>>> implicitly answer 3 :)
>>>>
>>>> thanx
>>>> ben
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  *flavio*
>>>> *junqueira*