Or rather if you're both in favor of it.. get the source/java only version out as 0.13.0 and follow up with automated building g and testing framework for 0.13.1.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Andrew Palumbo <ap....@outlook.com> Date: 03/18/2017 1:40 PM (GMT-08:00) To: dev@mahout.apache.org Subject: RE: New RC? Ok.. let's revisit after we get first out the door. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Andrew Musselman <andrew.mussel...@gmail.com> Date: 03/18/2017 1:34 PM (GMT-08:00) To: dev@mahout.apache.org Subject: Re: New RC? That's what I'd prefer too. On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Trevor Grant <trevor.d.gr...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm yes and no about that. > > Yes- because, yea awesome. > > no- bc of limited testing bandwidth. > > I'd be more in favor of lets push 0.13.0 with minimal binary support, and > then get IT testing all sured up (MAHOUT-1949) and then do another release > soon, with very little additional code, but add native solvers and spark > 2.0/scala 2.11 binaries > > e.g. lets just get the current one out the door and then focus on > automation to make future release cycles quicker and less painful. > > just my .02 > > tg > > Trevor Grant > Data Scientist > https://github.com/rawkintrevo > http://stackexchange.com/users/3002022/rawkintrevo > http://trevorgrant.org > > *"Fortunate is he, who is able to know the causes of things." -Virgil* > > > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Andrew Palumbo <ap....@outlook.com> > wrote: > > > Ahh.. thats true.. they should be added in with profiles, so they're only > > activated when the distribution is built specifically for them. > > > > > > ReE: the distribution, I'd like to put three out.. one java only, one > > java/OpenMP, and one Java/OpenMP/OpenCL. > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Trevor Grant <trevor.d.gr...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 3:59:48 PM > > To: dev@mahout.apache.org > > Subject: Re: New RC? > > > > I didn't realize we had intended to add viennaCl jars to binary > > distibution... Cool if we do though. > > > > tg > > > > Trevor Grant > > Data Scientist > > https://github.com/rawkintrevo > > http://stackexchange.com/users/3002022/rawkintrevo > > http://trevorgrant.org > > > > *"Fortunate is he, who is able to know the causes of things." -Virgil* > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Andrew Palumbo <ap....@outlook.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I think we have a few minor changes that we could add (updating > > readme.md > > > eg..).. but more importantly when going through the poms this week, I > > > noticed that the viennacl jars are not being added to the binary > > > distribution artifact. > > > > > > Have not started a jira for it because I'm unsure of the fix, but > I'll > > > add one shortly.. def a blocker though.. until that is fixed No need > for > > an > > > RC IMO. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Galaxy Tab A > > > > > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > > From: Trevor Grant <trevor.d.gr...@gmail.com> > > > Date: 3/18/17 2:59 PM (GMT-05:00) > > > To: dev@mahout.apache.org > > > Subject: New RC? > > > > > > Are we cutting a new RC this weekend? > > > > > > tg > > > > > > Trevor Grant > > > Data Scientist > > > https://github.com/rawkintrevo > > > http://stackexchange.com/users/3002022/rawkintrevo > > > http://trevorgrant.org > > > > > > *"Fortunate is he, who is able to know the causes of things." -Virgil* > > > > > >
