+1 for quick release cycle +1 for 2.0 support +1 for simplified release artifacts
Simplifying the release artifacts could potentially halve the time it requires for me to validate a release, so I am definitely in favor of that. I really like the idea of having essentially one or two artifacts that we can point users to (the standard jar and the tar.gz/zip standalone artifacts that contain 'everything'). I think this will definitely help increase adoption, especially if our high-level documentation focuses on these artifacts. Deron On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Niketan Pansare <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for quick release cycle and adding 2.0 support. > > Thanks, > > Niketan Pansare > IBM Almaden Research Center > E-mail: npansar At us.ibm.com > http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view.php?person=us-npansar > > [image: Inactive hide details for dusenberrymw---07/28/2016 09:17:08 > AM---I'm definitely in favor of releasing as soon as possible, > as]dusenberrymw---07/28/2016 > 09:17:08 AM---I'm definitely in favor of releasing as soon as possible, as > well as moving to quick release cycles. > > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: 07/28/2016 09:17 AM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SystemML 0.11 release > ------------------------------ > > > > I'm definitely in favor of releasing as soon as possible, as well as > moving to quick release cycles. In addition to adding 2.0 support, we > should also slim down our release artifacts to a single, simple > distribution (in addition to the required 'source' distribution) to make > adoption easier. > > -Mike > > -- > > Mike Dusenberry > GitHub: github.com/dusenberrymw > LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/mikedusenberry > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > > On Jul 28, 2016, at 8:26 AM, Glenn Weidner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Given that Spark 2.0 is officially released, we should also > incorporate/verify compatibility with Spark 2.0 for SystemML 0.11 release. > > > > Thanks, > > Glenn > > > > Berthold Reinwald---07/28/2016 03:42:37 AM---Having a release with > feature complete frame support is a good idea. API completeness needs to be > v > > > > From: Berthold Reinwald/Almaden/IBM@IBMUS > > To: [email protected] > > Date: 07/28/2016 03:42 AM > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SystemML 0.11 release > > > > > > > > > > Having a release with feature complete frame support is a good idea. API > > completeness needs to be verified. > > > > Regards, > > Berthold Reinwald > > IBM Almaden Research Center > > office: (408) 927 2208; T/L: 457 2208 > > e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > From: Acs S <[email protected]> > > To: "[email protected]" > > <[email protected]> > > Date: 07/28/2016 12:56 AM > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SystemML 0.11 release > > > > > > > > That makes sense. > > Going forward we should plan on having release at fix interval (+/- few > > days) with some key features.Probably quarterly release will be one > > suggestion. > > -Arvind > > > > From: Matthias Boehm <[email protected]> > > To: dev <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 11:09 PM > > Subject: [DISCUSS] SystemML 0.11 release > > > > > > > > Soon, we'll be done with the native frame support and various API > changes. > > This seems to be a good point in time to create our next 0.11 release. > > What > > do you think? In case the majority is in favor, let's collect the open > > features and issues here in this thread. > > > > Regards, > > Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
