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

Switch to Plain View
Hadoop, mail # dev - [DISCUSS] Hadoop SSO/Token Server Components


+
Larry McCay 2013-07-02, 20:03
+
Zheng, Kai 2013-07-03, 18:39
+
Larry McCay 2013-07-03, 20:10
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-03, 23:35
+
Larry McCay 2013-07-03, 23:49
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-07-04, 18:40
+
Alejandro Abdelnur 2013-07-04, 20:09
+
Zheng, Kai 2013-07-05, 17:34
+
Larry McCay 2013-07-05, 18:25
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop SSO/Token Server Components
Larry McCay 2013-07-05, 19:24
Hi Andy -

> Happy Fourth of July to you and yours.

Same to you and yours. :-)
We had some fun in the sun for a change - we've had nothing but rain on the east coast lately.

> My concern here is there may have been a misinterpretation or lack of
> consensus on what is meant by "clean slate"
Apparently so.
On the pre-summit call, I stated that I was interested in reconciling the jiras so that we had one to work from.

You recommended that we set them aside for the time being - with the understanding that work would continue on your side (and our's as well) - and approach the community discussion from a clean slate.
We seemed to do this at the summit session quite well.
It was my understanding that this community discussion would live beyond the summit and continue on this list.

While closing the summit session we agreed to follow up on common-dev with first a summary then a discussion of the moving parts.

I never expected the previous work to be abandoned and fully expected it to inform the discussion that happened here.

If you would like to reframe what clean slate was supposed to mean or describe what it means now - that would be welcome - before I waste anymore time trying to facilitate a community discussion that is apparently not wanted.

> Nowhere in this
> picture are self appointed "master JIRAs" and such, which have been
> disappointing to see crop up, we should be collaboratively coding not
> planting flags.

I don't know what you mean by self-appointed master JIRAs.
It has certainly not been anyone's intention to disappoint.
Any mention of a new JIRA was just to have a clear context to gather the agreed upon points - previous and/or existing JIRAs would easily be linked.

Planting flags… I need to go back and read my discussion point about the JIRA and see how this is the impression that was made.
That is not how I define success. The only flags that count is code. What we are lacking is the roadmap on which to put the code.

> I read Kai's latest document as something approaching today's consensus (or
> at least a common point of view?) rather than a historical document.
> Perhaps he and it can be given equal share of the consideration.

I definitely read it as something that has evolved into something approaching what we have been talking about so far. There has not however been enough discussion anywhere near the level of detail in that document and more details are needed for each component in the design.
Why the work in that document should not be fed into the community discussion as anyone else's would be - I fail to understand.

My suggestion continues to be that you should take that document and speak to the inventory of moving parts as we agreed.
As these are agreed upon, we will ensure that the appropriate subtasks are filed against whatever JIRA is to host them - don't really care much which it is.

I don't really want to continue with two separate JIRAs - as I stated long ago - but until we understand what the pieces are and how they relate then they can't be consolidated.
Even if 9533 ended up being repurposed as the server instance of the work - it should be a subtask of a larger one - if that is to be 9392, so be it.
We still need to define all the pieces of the larger picture before that can be done.

What I thought was the clean slate approach to the discussion seemed a very reasonable way to make all this happen.
If you would like to restate what you intended by it or something else equally as reasonable as a way to move forward that would be awesome.

I will be happy to work toward the roadmap with everyone once it is articulated, understood and actionable.
In the meantime, I have work to do.

thanks,

--larry

BTW - I meant to quote you in an earlier response and ended up saying it was Aaron instead. Not sure what happened there. :-)

On Jul 4, 2013, at 2:40 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Larry (and all),
>
> Happy Fourth of July to you and yours.
>
> In our shop Kai and Tianyou are already doing the coding, so I'd defer to
+
Larry McCay 2013-07-10, 13:42
+
Daryn Sharp 2013-07-10, 16:30
+
Alejandro Abdelnur 2013-07-10, 15:14
+
Brian Swan 2013-07-10, 17:06
+
Larry McCay 2013-07-10, 17:39
+
Brian Swan 2013-07-10, 17:59
+
Larry McCay 2013-07-27, 00:59
+
Larry McCay 2013-07-30, 16:43
+
Alejandro Abdelnur 2013-08-06, 20:04
+
Chris Nauroth 2013-08-06, 20:12
+
Alejandro Abdelnur 2013-08-06, 20:15
+
Larry McCay 2013-08-06, 21:48
+
Chris Nauroth 2013-08-06, 22:22
+
Larry McCay 2013-09-03, 12:20
+
Chris Douglas 2013-09-03, 22:44
+
Larry McCay 2013-09-03, 22:55
+
Zheng, Kai 2013-09-04, 02:00
+
Larry McCay 2013-09-04, 18:19
+
Chris Douglas 2013-09-04, 19:39
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-09-05, 06:41
+
Zheng, Kai 2013-09-05, 07:29
+
Li, Tianyou 2013-07-04, 04:19
+
Larry McCay 2013-07-04, 10:52
+
Zheng, Kai 2013-07-04, 11:21
+
Larry McCay 2013-07-04, 16:18
+
Brian Swan 2013-07-03, 18:32
+
Larry McCay 2013-07-03, 20:13