Hmm, I thought that the BAD model wasn’t working too badly … little
do I
know.
On the other hand it seems that the module isn’t actually used - at
least it
seems that there were no changes in the module related to experiments
since
we merged repositories. Is that right? Or has somebody worked on that
module
recently?
Cheers,
Till
On 31 May 2017, at 22:20, Steven Jacobs wrote:
My two cents on this is that the BAD model doesn't work well, so I'd
personally be against following it. I would vote to keep it inside as
well.
Steven
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:02 PM abdullah alamoudi
<[email protected]>
wrote:
If that is the case (which makes sense), then keeping it inside and
cleaning it up might be the better approach.
On May 31, 2017, at 8:45 PM, Ildar Absalyamov <
[email protected]> wrote:
The real challenge is that separate repo should not the treated as
/dev/null for old code.
I believe that committing changes, that causes this repo to be
broken
*must* be treated as -1 Jenkins bit.
On May 31, 2017, at 16:41, Yingyi Bu <[email protected]> wrote:
+1.
Best，
Yingyi
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Till Westmann <[email protected]>
wrote:
I read this discussion that Ildar’s suggestion to move
asterix-experiments
to a different repo would be a solution that works for everybody.
Did I read that correctly or did someone disagree with such an
approach?
Cheers,
Till
On 31 May 2017, at 16:14, Mike Carey wrote:
This should be decided by more knowlegeable folks than me - it
just
seems
"weird" to me that that's in the main code base and not outside
(as a
super
useful client package).
On 5/31/17 4:12 PM, Chris Hillery wrote:
If we move asterix-experiments out, we would need to change the
current
Perf job at Couchbase. However I think the change would actually
make
that
job less complicated, at least if that allowed one to use a
pre-compiled
Asterix distribution for experiments rather than requiring the
full
source
code to be available.
Ceej
aka Chris Hillery
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Yingyi Bu <[email protected]>
wrote:
The code in asterix-experiments is not well organized, e.g.:
https://github.com/apache/asterixdb/tree/master/asterixdb/
asterix-experiments/src/main/java/org/apache/asterix/experiment/builder
https://github.com/apache/asterixdb/tree/master/asterixdb/
asterix-experiments/src/main/java/org/apache/asterix/experiment/report
Can anyone who actively uses asterix-experiments clean up the
code?
An alternative approach would be to put it in a separate github
repo,
if
it is relatively independent of AsterixDB.
Best,
Yingyi
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Ian Maxon <[email protected]>
wrote:
I also would vouch for keeping asterix-experiments in.
'asterix-tools'
and the others could probably go.
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Taewoo Kim
<[email protected]>
wrote:
@Ildar: +1
Best,
Taewoo
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Ildar Absalyamov <
[email protected]> wrote:
I found Young-Seok’s asterix-experiment package useful for
everyone,
who
is doing any kind of experiments.
Can we instead make an ‘asterix-contrib’ repo and move
it there,
the
same
way we did with asterix-bad?
We can also launch an automated build in Jenkins to verify
it
builds
against master, again the same way BAD is working. This
package
does
not
have a lot of dependencies, so it will be fairly painless to
maintain
it.
On May 31, 2017, at 09:06, Yingyi Bu <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi dev,
I wonder if the following potentially obsolete modules
could
be
moved
out of the AsterixDB code base:
-- asterix-experiment
-- asterix-tools
-- hyracks-dist
-- hyracks-sever
Any thoughts?
Best,
Yingyi
Best regards,
Ildar
Best regards,
Ildar
