I second Aljoscha :-) On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> wrote:
> I checked it out and I liked it. :-) > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 at 19:40 Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Initial PR for the layout: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2387 > > > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > > > On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 at 03:15 Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > >> +1 :-) > > >> > > >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >> > > >> > +1, thanks :-) > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > If there are no objections, I would like to work on this in the > next > > >> > > days. I would like to only do the restructuring and don't add any > > new > > >> > > content (e.g. we would have a few empty pages in the beginning). > > >> > > > > >> > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > I added to the "Application Development" Docs the Section > "Types, > > >> > > > TypeInformation, Serialization". > > >> > > > I think that is an important enough aspect to warrant separate > > docs. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Till Rohrmann < > > trohrm...@apache.org > > >> > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> +1 for the FLIP and making streaming the common case. Very good > > >> > proposal > > >> > > >> :-) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Aljoscha Krettek < > > >> > aljos...@apache.org > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > +1 I like it a lot! > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 18:43 Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > My take would be to take streaming as the common case and > > make > > >> > > special > > >> > > >> > > sections for batch. > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > We can still have a few streaming-only sections (end to end > > >> > exactly > > >> > > >> once) > > >> > > >> > > and a few batch-only sections (optimizer). > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Ufuk Celebi < > u...@apache.org > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > I very much like this proposal. This is long overdue. Our > > >> > > >> > > > documentation never "broke up" with the old batch focus. > > >> That's > > >> > > where > > >> > > >> > > > the current structure comes from and why people often > don't > > >> find > > >> > > what > > >> > > >> > > > they are looking for. We were trying to treat streaming > and > > >> > batch > > >> > > as > > >> > > >> > > > equals. We never were "brave" enough to move > streaming-only > > >> > > concepts > > >> > > >> > > > to the top-level. I really like that you are proposing > this > > >> now > > >> > > (for > > >> > > >> > > > example for Event time, State Backends etc.). I would > love > > to > > >> > have > > >> > > >> > > > this go hand in hand with the 1.2 release. > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > What is your opinion about pages affecting both streaming > > and > > >> > > batch > > >> > > >> > > > like "Connectors" or "Failure model"? We could have the > > >> landing > > >> > > page > > >> > > >> > > > cover the general material (e.g. restart strategies) and > > then > > >> > have > > >> > > >> > > > sub-pages for streaming- and batch-specific stuff. Or we > > treat > > >> > > >> > > > streaming as the common case and have a sub-section for > > batch. > > >> > We > > >> > > >> > > > probably have to decide this case-by-case, but to me it > > feels > > >> > like > > >> > > >> > > > this was the main problem with the old documentation > > structure > > >> > > >> > > > (content is a different story of course ;)). > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Stephan Ewen < > > >> se...@apache.org > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > >> > > > > Hi all! > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > I posted another FLIP - this time about a suggestion to > > make > > >> > the > > >> > > >> > > > > documentation more accessible. > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP- > 3+-+Organization+of+Documentation > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > The issue of accessibility of information came up > > repeatedly > > >> > > from > > >> > > >> > > users I > > >> > > >> > > > > talked to, so this is a suggestion how to improve this. > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > Greetings, > > >> > > >> > > > > Stephan > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >
