I would like to remove it as well. I doubt that a lot of people will really switch back to the old one. So we won't gain a lot by keeping it around imo.
On Sunday, October 4, 2015, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> wrote: > Its not very hard to move the features to the new interface. I think the > main issue is time ;) > For the log file access, somebody has the JIRA assigned, but I don't know > when its done. Maybe the missing features make it to the master in time, > but I doubt it. > There are other issues with the new web interface, such as hard-coded > values, not very many tests, no user exposure yet, ... > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > Robert, how hard it is to move these missing features to the new front > end? > > > > I prefer to remove the old one to prevent another duplicate things in > > Flink. > > > > - Henry > > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > The new one does not have access to the JobManager log file. > > > Also, the graphs for the TaskManagers are missing. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > >> I would actually like to remove the old one, but I am okay with > keeping > > it > > >> and activating the new one by default > > >> > > >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org > <javascript:;>> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > The list from Kostas also contained the new JobManager front end. > > >> > > > >> > Do we want to enable it by default in the 0.10 release? > > >> > > > >> > Are we going to keep the old interface, or are we removing it? > > >> > > > >> > I'm voting for enabling the new one by default and keeping the old > one > > >> for > > >> > the next release. > > >> > What do you think? > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Henry Saputra < > > henry.sapu...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Oops, I meant Spargel [1] =) > > >> > > > > >> > > [1] > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-master/libs/spargel_guide.html > > >> > > > > >> > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Henry Saputra < > > >> henry.sapu...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > +1 to the idea. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I also think we need to remove Pregel if Gelly wants to > graduate. > > It > > >> > > already > > >> > > > deprecated in 0.9. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > - Henry > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tuesday, September 29, 2015, Kostas Tzoumas < > > ktzou...@apache.org <javascript:;>> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Hi everyone, > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I would like to propose to cancel the 0.10-milestone release > and > > go > > >> > > >> directly for a 0.10 release as soon as possible. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> My opinion would be to focus this release on: > > >> > > >> - Graduating the streaming API out of staging (depends on some > > open > > >> > pull > > >> > > >> requests) > > >> > > >> - Master high availability > > >> > > >> - New monitoring framework > > >> > > >> - Graduating Gelly out of staging > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Flink 1.0 will probably come after 0.10, which gives us time to > > fix > > >> > open > > >> > > >> issues and freeze APIs. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> What do you think? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> > > >> Kostas > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >
