Hi Ismaël! Quoting Kenn (from PR-8410 <https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8410>): "We discussed on list that it would be better to have new things always start as experimental in a way that clearly distinguishes them from the core."
Rgds On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 10:44 PM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: > I saw that the runner was merged but I don’t get why the foler is > called ‘runners/jet experimental’ and not simply ‘runners/jet’. Is it > because the runner does not pass ValidatesRunner? Or because the > contributors are few? I don’t really see any reason behind this > suffix. And even if the status is not mature that’s not different from > other already merged runners. > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:43 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Nice! That is *way* more than the PR I was looking for. I just meant > that you could update the website/ directory. It is fine to keep the runner > in your own repository if you want. > > > > But I think it is great if you want to contribute it to Apache Beam > (hence donate it to the Apache Software Foundation). The benefits include: > low-latency testing, free updates when someone does a refactor. Things to > consider are: subject to ASF / Beam governance, PMC, commiters, subject to > Beam's release cadence (and we might exclude from Beam releases for a > little bit). Typically, we have kept runners on a branch until they are > somewhat stable. I don't feel strongly about this for disjoint codebases > that can easily be excluded from releases. We might want to suffix > `-experimental` to the artifacts for some time. > > > > I commented on the PR about the necessary i.p. clearance steps. > > > > Kenn > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 3:59 AM jo...@hazelcast.com <jo...@hazelcast.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Kenn. > >> > >> It took me a while to migrate our code to the Beam repo, but I finally > have been able to create the Pull Request you asked for, this is it: > https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8410 > >> > >> Looking forward to your feedback! > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Jozsef > >> > >> On 2019/04/19 20:52:42, Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > The ValidatesRunner tests are the best source we have for knowing the > >> > capabilities of a runner. Are there instructions for running the > tests? > >> > > >> > Assuming we can check it out, then just open a PR to the website with > the > >> > current capabilities and caveats. Since it is a big deal and could > use lots > >> > of eyes, I would share the PR link on this thread. > >> > > >> > Kenn > >> > > >> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:53 AM Jozsef Bartok <jo...@hazelcast.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi. We at Hazelcast Jet have been working for a while now to > implement a > >> > > Java Beam Runner (non-portable) based on Hazelcast Jet ( > >> > > https://jet.hazelcast.org/). The process is still ongoing ( > >> > > https://github.com/hazelcast/hazelcast-jet-beam-runner), but we are > >> > > aiming for a fully functional, reliable Runner which can proudly > join the > >> > > Capability Matrix. For that purpose I would like to ask what’s your > process > >> > > of validating runners? We are already running the @ValidatesRunner > tests > >> > > and the Nexmark test suite, but beyond that what other steps do we > need to > >> > > take to get our Runner to the level it needs to be at? > >> > > > >> > >
