Is 3.2.0 going to be considered a "breaking" version in the sense that we need to alter some APIs? or will it be possible to do 3.2.0 without that? I'm in favor of a breaking version for 3.2.0 so that we can try to clean up some old code especially if we have other changes driving that.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Marko Rodriguez <okramma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Pieter, > > > A tad selfish I know, > > but https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-968 is what I am > > waiting for. > > The things I listed are what I care about and what I plan to work on. If > you have things you care about, you can work on those. If you are unsure of > a development strategy, perhaps you can get others excited about your idea > with a [DISCUSS], work through pros/cons, get some buy in, etc. From there, > develop the idea, test it, document it, and ultimately provide a PR to get > it merged into a release line. > > http://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/3.1.1-SNAPSHOT/dev/developer/ > > SIDENOTE: A few people emailed me personally saying comments to the > effect: "Please deliver X, Y, Z feature." Note, if you want something done, > do it. If you don't know how to do it, learn it. If you don't know how to > learn it, ask and we can point you in the right direction. If you don't > know how to ask -- I know you are lying cause you asked me to deliver X, Y, > Z. Gotcha! > > Take care, > Marko. > > http://markorodriguez.com > > > > > Cheers > > Pieter > > > > On 30/01/2016 19:09, Marko Rodriguez wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> With TinkerPop 3.1.1 about to be put up for VOTE, we can start to turn > our attentions towards 3.1.2 and 3.2.0. > >> > >> I was thinking it would be good to have a planning session to organize > JIRA and discuss order of operations. However, JIRA planning sessions are a > bit boring as they are too "nitty gritty," so perhaps we can use this > thread to discuss what we (as individuals) would like to accomplish for > 3.1.2 and 3.2.0 in general. This way, we have more summaries of everyone's > desires and then the specifics can be shakin' out in JIRA. As such, here > are my desires: > >> > >> TinkerPop 3.1.2 > >> * Test a new shuffle optimization idea in SparkGraphComputer and > if its efficient, use it. > >> * Benchmark GiraphGraphComputer at scale and optimize it where > need be. > >> > >> TinkerPop 3.2.0 > >> * Gremlin DSLs -- e.g. > social.people().aged(36).who().know().person("daniel").who().worksFor().company("cisco") > >> * TraversalSource API redesign. g = > graph.traversal().withComputer(…).withStrategy(…).withBulk(…). The current > TraversalSourceBuilder model is horrible. > >> * OLTP/OLAP-mixed traversal -- e.g. > OLAP[g.V().out()]OLTP[limit(10)]OLAP[out().values("name").order()]OLTP[sample(1)] > >> * GraphComputer API additions for intelligent data access -- e.g. > g.V().count() does not need to grab all the edges of the graph! > >> * Bulking beyond Long -- support BigInteger, Complex numbers, > Doubles, etc. > >> * Redesign TraverserRequirements -- this is a rats nest that > didn't really work out as planned and its inefficient. I think I can make > this a lot more simple. > >> * ServerGraph/ServerStep/ServerStrategy -- like OLAP, but for > GremlinServer -- e.g. [GraphStep, VertexStep, ServerStep] (collaborate with > GremlinServer people on this). > >> * Scope.local & Scope.global rethinking -- count(local), > dedup(local) … too many -- this is not manageable! What about > g.V().groupCount().inside(order().limit(10)) instead of > g.V().groupCount().order(local).limit(local,10). > >> * Clean up HadoopGraph configurations -- Why do we have > gremlin.spark.graphInputRDD and gremlin.hadoop.graphInputFormat. We should > just have one configuration: gremlin.hadoop.graphInputClass. > >> * Publish a tutorial on the Gremlin VM and compiling other > languages to it. I would really like to have the gremlin-examples/ package > that Jason/Stephen were talking about. > >> * Optimize Gryo serialization and SparkGraphComputer's > GryoSerializer. > >> > >> Those are the big ticket items that I would like to get handle for the > next versions of TinkerPop. > >> > >> What are your thoughts on these and what are your thoughts on what you > plan to accomplish in this next push? > >> > >> Take care, > >> Marko. > >> > >> http://markorodriguez.com > >> > >> > > > >
