I mean whether or not that will be included within the 1.0 release, I actually 
see this as a big step in productionalizing and making mahout easier to use.

> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:28:40 +0100
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Plan for 1.0
> 
> Hi Saikat,
> 
> What do you exactly mean by evaluation of PredictionIO?
> 
> -s
> 
> On 03/19/2014 04:26 PM, Saikat Kanjilal wrote:
> > One last thing, can we add the evaluation of PredictionIO to the list of 
> > topics for 1.0, I think thisThanks
> >
> >
> >> From: [email protected]
> >> Subject: Re: Plan for 1.0
> >> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:14:26 -0700
> >> To: [email protected]
> >> CC: [email protected]
> >>
> >> I'm on pacific standard time and am free Sundays late afternoon
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >>> On Mar 19, 2014, at 12:13 AM, "Dmitriy Lyubimov" <[email protected]> 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> i am on vacation, so most of the pacific daylight ranges on any day should
> >>> work for me.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Sebastian Schelter <[email protected]> 
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Friday would also work for me.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 03/19/2014 08:05 AM, Suneel Marthi wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Same here, travel next week and in Amsterdam the first week of April.  I
> >>>>> avoid Sundays or weekends for obvious reasons. How bout this Friday?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mar 19, 2014, at 3:02 AM, Sebastian Schelter <[email protected]> 
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Would some time on sunday work? I'll be traveling the next two weeks
> >>>>>> starting from Tuesday.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>> Sebastian
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 03/19/2014 07:55 AM, Suneel Marthi wrote:
> >>>>>>> I had a hangout setup for 0.9, not sure if its still valid;  I can
> >>>>>>> check on that or can set one up now. When would people wanna have it?
> >>>>>>> Mondays and Wednesdays don't work for me.  Would Tuesdays 6pm Eastern
> >>>>>>> Time work ?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 2:45 AM, Sebastian Schelter <
> >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Saikat,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1) I think that Mahout-1248 and 1249 are still very important features
> >>>>>>> that I would love to see in the codebase as they would highly improve
> >>>>>>> the usability of our ALS code.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2) I think the last discussion item regarding h2o was to find a way to
> >>>>>>> compare it against existing or spark related algorithm implementation 
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> get a better picture of programming model and performance. I also 
> >>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>> feel that a final decision has been reached about this.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 3) We should have the hangout, can someone step up and organize it?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>> Sebastian
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 03/19/2014 04:45 AM, Saikat Kanjilal wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi Guys,
> >>>>>>>> I read through the email threads with the weigh ins for the inclusion
> >>>>>>>> of H2O as well as spark and wanted to circle back on the plan for 
> >>>>>>>> folks to
> >>>>>>>> meet around 1.0, so a few questions:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1) How does the inclusion of H2O and spark weigh in importance versus
> >>>>>>>> the current JIRA items that are existing for potentially new feature 
> >>>>>>>> work
> >>>>>>>> to be done in mahout (in my case JIRA 1248/1249)
> >>>>>>>> 2) From reading all the responses it doesn't seem like there's full
> >>>>>>>> consensus on what the next steps are for h2o and how that relates to 
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> roadmap around 1.0, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding, can 
> >>>>>>>> someone
> >>>>>>>> outline whether any concrete decisions have been made on whether or 
> >>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>> mahout 1.0 will include h2o bindings
> >>>>>>>> 3) Are we moving forward with the google hangout , I didnt receive
> >>>>>>>   anything about this yet
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks in advance.
> >>>>
> >                                     
> >
> 
                                          

Reply via email to