On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Gaurav Gupta <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pramod, > > By that logic I would say let's put all partitionable operators into one > folder, non-partitionable operators in another and so on... > Remember the original goal of making it easier for new members to contribute and managing those contributions to maturity. It is not a functional level separation. > When I look at hadoop code I see these annotations being used at class > level and not at package/folder level. I had a typo in my email, I meant to say "think of this like a folder..." as an analogy and not literally. Thanks > Thanks > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Pramod Immaneni <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Gaurav Gupta <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Can same goal not be achieved by > > > using org.apache.hadoop.classification.InterfaceStability.Evolving / > > > org.apache.hadoop.classification.InterfaceStability.Unstable > annotation? > > > > > > > I think it is important to localize the additions in one place so that it > > becomes clearer to users about the maturity level of these, easier for > > developers to track them towards the path to maturity and also provides a > > clearer directive for committers and contributors on acceptance of new > > submissions. Relying on the annotations alone makes them spread all over > > the place and adds an additional layer of difficulty in identification > not > > just for users but also for developers who want to find such operators > and > > improve them. This of this like a folder level annotation where > everything > > under this folder is unstable or evolving. > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:35 PM, David Yan <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Malhar in its current state, has way too many operators that > fall > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > > > "non-production quality" category. We should make it obvious to > > > users > > > > > > that > > > > > > > which operators are up to par, and which operators are not, and > > > maybe > > > > > > even > > > > > > > remove those that are likely not ever used in a real use case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am ambivalent about revisiting older operators and doing this > > > > exercise > > > > > as > > > > > > this can cause unnecessary tensions. My original intent is for > > > > > > contributions going forward. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO it is important to address this as well. Operators outside the > > play > > > > > area should be of well known quality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this is important, and I don't anticipate much tension if we > > > > establish clear criteria. > > > > It's not helpful if we let the old subpar operators stay and put up > the > > > > bars for new operators. > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > >
