On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Robin Anil <robin.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > 3rd thing: > I am planning to convert the launcher code to implement ToolRunner. Anyone > volunteer to help me with that?
I had wished to begin standardizing how we write these jobs, yes. If you see AbstractJob, you'll see how I've unified my three jobs and how I'm trying to structure them. It implements ToolRunner so all that is already taken care of. I think some standardization is really useful, to solve problems like this and others, and I'll offer this as a 'draft' for further work. No real point in continuing to solve these things individually. > 5th The release: > Fix a date for 0.3 release? We should look to improve quality in this > release. i.e In-terms of running the parts of the code each of us haven't > tested (like I have run bayes and fp growth many a time, So, I will focus on > running clustering algorithms and try out various options see if there is > any issue) provide feedback so that the one who wrote it can help tweak it? Maybe, maybe not. There are always 100 things that could be worked on, and that will never change -- it'll never be 'done'. The question of a release, at this point, is more like, has enough time elapsed / has enough progress been made to warrant a new point release? I think we are at that point now. The question is not what big things can we do -- 'big' is for 0.4 or beyond now -- but what small wins can we get in, or what small changes are necessary to tie up loose ends to make a roughly coherent release. In that sense, no, I'm not sure I'd say things like what you describe should be in for 0.3. I mean we could, but then it's months away, and isn't that just what we call "0.4"? Everyone's had a week or two to move towards 0.3 so I believe it's time to begin pushing on these issues, closing then / resolving them / moving to 0.4 by end of week. Then set the wheel in motion first thing next week, since it'll still be some time before everyone's on board.
