Hi, Flavio, Matthieu, Patrick, and all Cheer up, guys. I'm seeing opportunities in this stream processing field as well as in S4. What I haven’t mentioned is that, S4 had found successful applications in our research group even back in the 0.3.0 days and now in our start-up. We have built scalable real time search over microblogs with some S4 features enhanced (the paper appears in 2013’s EDBT proceedings, link is http://www.edbt.org/Proceedings/2013-Genova/papers/edbt/a31-lin.pdf); we also built a platform on top of S4 for detecting and analyzing real-time traffic conditions, processing over hundreds of millions of records every day.
Now we plan to contribute to the community. I personally have created and responded to some JIRAs, but I would like to do more. Actually, I am ongoing proposing a design documentation of integrating S4 with Helix along the roadmap; this would help enhancing the elasticity feature for S4. So, I suppose we could put the "retirement" discussion aside? Give us the new comers some time perhaps a couple of months to see what we can do to make the community healthier. Of course, some of us are new; we shall ask for your help and guidance occasionally, please be responsive (as what you are doing now), :) You all have done brilliant jobs! :) On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > Correct, I was referring to the rece > > nt thread about shutting down the > s4 podling. In the incubator that's called "retirement" > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/retirement.html > > Glad to see folks stepping up! > > Patrick > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I think Pat is referring to the discussion we have had when I proposed > to retire the project. I didn't use this exact word, but it is essentially > what I meant. You and a few others stepped up and said that you wouldn't > like to see it retiring and would like to give it a shot at helping with > building a community, contributing patches, and just increasing activity in > general. > > > > Does it make sense? > > > > -Flavio > > > > On Sep 3, 2013, at 8:27 PM, Oleg Tikhonov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> the item 3 - deleted completely. > >> > >> Can you shed more light on "retirement" discussion. I am new here and > >> probably missed it. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> I would remove 3 entirely - that's not needed for graduation. > >>> > >>> You should also mention the result of the "retirement" discussion - > >>> give the ipmc/board some insight: that folks stepped up and are > >>> pushing forward, i.e. no retirement at this point. > >>> > >>> Patrick > >>> > >>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Oleg Tikhonov <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Thanks ! > >>>> > >>>> Added Patrick's & Flavio's comments. > >>>> http://pastebin.com/M83sB2z8 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Is there anything else? > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> > >>>> Oleg > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:51 PM, FPJ <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> When you say put out more releases, do you mean more in number or > having > >>>>> releases more frequently? S4 has had two releases already, but the > >>>>> frequency > >>>>> of releases has been low in the past. I think activity is a real > issue. > >>>>> > >>>>> Your point 2 is a good summary of what I've been trying to say. We > are > >>> on > >>>>> the same page there. > >>>>> > >>>>> -Flavio > >>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Patrick Hunt [mailto:[email protected]] > >>>>>> Sent: 03 September 2013 06:42 > >>>>>> To: [email protected] > >>>>>> Subject: Re: draft of ASF board report > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I have a few comments: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1) I don't think the issues listed in "Three most important issues > to > >>>>> address in > >>>>>> the move towards graduation" are apropos. What you want to list here > >>> is > >>>>>> things blocking graduation. IMO this is two things; 1) put out more > >>>>> releases, > >>>>>> and 2) build community (of which 2 is more important at this point) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2) I think you should also include mention of a PPMC member > requesting > >>>>>> that the podling be retired - and the results of that discussion. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Patrick > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Joe Brockmeier <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Matthieu Morel wrote: > >>>>>>>> Thanks for the effort! That looks good to me, except maybe that in > >>> my > >>>>>>>> view the real issue about graduation is the activity. Adding more > >>>>>>>> requirements will only raise up the bar for graduation. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think the IPMC would expect to see a more active and > >>> self-governing > >>>>>>> project before voting for graduation, whether or not the podling > >>> puts > >>>>>>> that down as an issue. (See: > >>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#community) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> jzb > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Joe Brockmeier > >>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>> Twitter: @jzb > >>>>>>> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > > >
