Re: [FYI] New Apache Beam Swag Store!

[Kenneth Knowles]

Sweet! Agree with Raghu :-)

Kenn

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 6:06 AM Matthias Baetens 
wrote:

> Great news, big thanks for all the work, Gris! Looking forward to people
> wearing this around the globe ;)
>
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 at 01:28 Ankur Goenka  wrote:
>
>> Awesome!
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 4:24 PM Pablo Estrada  wrote:
>>
>>> Nice : D
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 3:43 PM Raghu Angadi  wrote:
>>>
 Woo-hoo! This is terrific.

 If we are increasing color choices I would like black or charcoal...
 Beam logo would really pop on a dark background.

 On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 3:32 PM Griselda Cuevas  wrote:

> Hi Beam Community,
>
> I just want to share with you the exciting news about our brand new
> Apache Beam Swag Store!
>
> You can find it here: https://store-beam.myshopify.com/
>
> *How does it work?*
>
>- You can just select the items you want and check-out. Our Vendor
>ships to anywhere in the world and normally can have swag to be 
> delivered
>within 1 week. Each company or user will need to pay for their own 
> swag.
>- If you are hosting an event or representing Beam at one, reach
>out to me or the beam-events-meetups slack channel, I'll be happy to 
> review
>your event and see if we can sponsor the swag. We'll have codes for 
> this
>occasions thanks to Google, who has sponsored an initial inventory.
>
> If you have feedback, ideas on new swag, questions or suggestions,
> reach out to me and/or Matthias Baetens.
>
> Happy Friday!
> G
>
>
> --
>>> Got feedback? go/pabloem-feedback
>>> 
>>>
>> --
>
>

Re: [FYI] New Apache Beam Swag Store!

[Matthias Baetens]

Great news, big thanks for all the work, Gris! Looking forward to people
wearing this around the globe ;)

On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 at 01:28 Ankur Goenka  wrote:

> Awesome!
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 4:24 PM Pablo Estrada  wrote:
>
>> Nice : D
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 3:43 PM Raghu Angadi  wrote:
>>
>>> Woo-hoo! This is terrific.
>>>
>>> If we are increasing color choices I would like black or charcoal...
>>> Beam logo would really pop on a dark background.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 3:32 PM Griselda Cuevas  wrote:
>>>
 Hi Beam Community,

 I just want to share with you the exciting news about our brand new
 Apache Beam Swag Store!

 You can find it here: https://store-beam.myshopify.com/

 *How does it work?*

- You can just select the items you want and check-out. Our Vendor
ships to anywhere in the world and normally can have swag to be 
 delivered
within 1 week. Each company or user will need to pay for their own swag.
- If you are hosting an event or representing Beam at one, reach
out to me or the beam-events-meetups slack channel, I'll be happy to 
 review
your event and see if we can sponsor the swag. We'll have codes for this
occasions thanks to Google, who has sponsored an initial inventory.

 If you have feedback, ideas on new swag, questions or suggestions,
 reach out to me and/or Matthias Baetens.

 Happy Friday!
 G


 --
>> Got feedback? go/pabloem-feedback
>> 
>>
> --

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 2.5.0, release candidate #1

[Tim]

Tested by our team:
- mvn inclusion
- Avro, ES, Hadoop IF IO
- Pipelines run on Spark (Cloudera 5.12.0 YARN cluster)
- Reviewed release notes

+1 

Thanks also to everyone who helped get over the gradle hurdle and in particular 
to JB.

Tim

> On 9 Jun 2018, at 05:56, Jean-Baptiste Onofré  wrote:
> 
> No problem Pablo.
> 
> The vote period is a minimum, it can be extended as requested or if we
> don't have the minimum of 3 binding votes.
> 
> Regards
> JB
> 
>> On 09/06/2018 01:54, Pablo Estrada wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> I'd like to request an extension of the voting period until Monday
>> evening (US time, so later in other geographical regions). This is
>> because we were only now able to publish Dataflow Workers, and have not
>> had the chance to run release validation tests on them. The extension
>> will allow us to validate and vote by Monday.
>> Is this acceptable to the community?
>> 
>> Best
>> -P.
>> 
>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 6:20 AM Alexey Romanenko
>> mailto:aromanenko@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>Thank you JB for your work!
>> 
>>I tested running simple streaming (/KafkaIO/) and batch (/TextIO /
>>HDFS/) pipelines with SparkRunner on YARN cluster - it works fine.
>> 
>>WBR,
>>Alexey
>> 
>> 
>>>On 8 Jun 2018, at 10:00, Etienne Chauchot >>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>I forgot to vote:
>>>+1 (non binding). 
>>>What I tested:
>>>- no functional or performance regression comparing to v2.4
>>>- dependencies in the poms are ok
>>> 
>>>Etienne
Le vendredi 08 juin 2018 à 08:27 +0200, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
+1 (non-binding), mainstream usage is not broken by the pom
changes and runtime has no known regression compared to the 2.4.0
 
(side note: kudo to JB for this build tool change release, I know
how it can hurt ;))
 
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github
 | LinkedIn
 | Book

 
 
 
Le jeu. 7 juin 2018 à 16:17, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> a écrit :
>Thanks for the details Etienne !
> 
>The good news is that the artifacts seem OK and the overall Nexmark
>results are consistent with the 2.4.0 release ones.
> 
>I'm starting a complete review using the beam-samples as well.
> 
>Regards
>JB
> 
>>On 07/06/2018 16:14, Etienne Chauchot wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I've just run the nexmark queries on v2.5.0-RC1 tag
>> What we can notice:
>> - query 3 (exercises CoGroupByKey, state and timer) shows
>different
>> output with DR between batch and streaming and with the other
>runners =>
>> I compared with v2.4 there were still these differences but with
>> different output size numbers
>> 
>> - query 6 (exercises specialized combiner) shows different output
>> between the runners => the correct output is 401. strange that
>in batch
>> mode some runners output les Sellers. I compared with v2.4
>same output
>> 
>> - response time of query 7 (exercices Max transform, fanout
>and side
>> input) is very slow on DR => I compared with v2.4 , comparable
>execution
>> times
>> 
>> I'm not comparing q10 because it is a write to GCS so it is
>very specific.
>> 
>> => Basically no regression comparing to v2.4
>> 
>> For the record here is the output (waiting for ongoing perfkit
>integration):
>> 
>> 
>> 1. DR batch
>> 
>> Performance:
>>  
>> 
>Conf  Runtime(sec)(Baseline)  Events(/sec)(Baseline)   
> Results(Baseline)
>>  
>> 
>   5,8 17283,1  
> 10  
>>  
>> 
>0001   3,2 31104,2   
> 92000  
>>  
>> 
>0002   1,2 82918,7 
> 351  
>>  
>> 
>0003   2,2 46210,7 
> 458  
>>  
>> 
>0004   1,2  8503,4 
>  40  
>>  
>> 
>0005   4,0 25220,7 
>  12  
>>  
>> 
>0006   0,9 11148,3 
> 401  
>>  
>> 
>0007  13,2  7580,9 
>   1