
Hello, Yarn - clessg
http://blog.npmjs.org/post/151660845210/hello-yarn
======
Semiapies
"This is how open source works"

Exactly. It's a client for an open standard. That's exactly why they're _open_
, so that this can be done.

Now, someone explain that to the people who whine and cite xkcd.com/927 every
time someone writes a new client.

------
edem
The naming is very unfortunate since there is already an OSS software around
with the same name: [0] and they clash now. [0][
[https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r2.7.2/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-
yar...](https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r2.7.2/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-
site/YARN.html)]

------
okket
See also:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12684980](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12684980)

~~~
barryhoodlum
This is npm's blog, not the initial announcement.

EDIT: responded to the wrong comment, sorry.

~~~
Semiapies
"See also" is just a reference to a related discussion, not the same as the
brain-dead calling of "dupe" on every link on a subject.

~~~
barryhoodlum
Sorry, I meant to respond to the other comment saying it was a dupe.

------
bogomipz
Slight name collision with Hadoop's YARN.

~~~
Semiapies
Unless everyone commits to using nonsense names for software, collision
happens.

~~~
bogomipz
Sure my point was just that Hadoops' YARN(yet another resource negotiater) is
fairly well known and well-established at this point. I don't actually care
what people name their project but I was expecting to see an article on
scheduler's is all.

------
zhs
Well said.

------
sickbeard
here we go again..

------
jrs235
"Dupe"; discussion here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12684980](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12684980)

~~~
jswny
This is NPM's post about Yarn, not what I would call a dupe.

~~~
jrs235
Its a dupe in that discussion about yarn has already been established and is
taking place on another thread.

There's no point in fragmenting the discussion of yarn.

~~~
lucideer
I would've expected the discussion here to focus on npm, their reaction to
competitors, and the main content of this article: client-registry cross-
compatibility.

~~~
jrs235
Why not add this (npm's response) to the discussion on the other thread?

Edit: which I just did.

~~~
dspillett
Depending on how the discussion grows such additional information could be
buried amongst other conversation, and it might be important enough to be
highlighted (by having its own thread here?).

