Re: [VOTE] Use probot/stale to automatically manage stale pull requests

+1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 4:27 PM Lukasz Cwik wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:53 PM Thomas Weise wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Robert Bradshaw >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:43 PM Andrew Pilloud >>> wrote: >>> +1 On Fri,

Re: [VOTE] Code Review Process

+1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 3:44 PM Pablo Estrada wrote: > +1 :) glad that we had this discussion > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 3:38 PM Udi Meiri wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:46 PM Andrew Pilloud >> wrote: >> >>> +1 - I hope this doesn't reduce the urgency to fix the root cause: not

Re: [VOTE] Use probot/stale to automatically manage stale pull requests

+1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:53 PM Thomas Weise wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Robert Bradshaw > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:43 PM Andrew Pilloud >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:31 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan >>> wrote: >>> +1 On

Re: [VOTE] Code Review Process

+1 :) glad that we had this discussion On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 3:38 PM Udi Meiri wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:46 PM Andrew Pilloud wrote: > >> +1 - I hope this doesn't reduce the urgency to fix the root cause: not >> having enough committers. >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:18 PM

Re: [VOTE] Use probot/stale to automatically manage stale pull requests

+1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:43 PM Andrew Pilloud wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:31 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:17 PM Henning Rohde wrote: >>> +1 On Fri,

Re: Managing outdated dependencies

Thanks. I left these ideas bit detailed for clarification. I'll rewrite them in a more concise form when we have enough feedback. - Cham On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:58 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > This does seem really useful. I appreciate the detailed explanations. If > we formalize it into

Re: [VOTE] Use probot/stale to automatically manage stale pull requests

+1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:43 PM Andrew Pilloud wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:31 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:17 PM Henning Rohde wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:16 AM Chamikara Jayalath >>> wrote: >>> +1

Re: Managing outdated dependencies

This does seem really useful. I appreciate the detailed explanations. If we formalize it into policy, I'd love to make it a bit more concise, and with appropriate room for human contestation of the guidelines. On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:47 PM Scott Wegner wrote: > Thanks Cham. Overall this seems

Re: Managing outdated dependencies

Thanks Cham. Overall this seems like a useful hygiene improvement for the project. I've left some comments in the doc. On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:48 AM Chamikara Jayalath wrote: > Hi All, > > I've copied ideas proposed in the doc below for more visibility. Any > comments are welcome. > > > > * -

Re: [VOTE] Code Review Process

+1 - I hope this doesn't reduce the urgency to fix the root cause: not having enough committers. On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:18 PM Henning Rohde wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:27 PM Dan Halperin wrote: > >> +1 -- this is encoding what I previously thought the process was and >> what,

Re: [VOTE] Use probot/stale to automatically manage stale pull requests

+1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:31 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:17 PM Henning Rohde wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:16 AM Chamikara Jayalath >> wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Cham >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:05 AM Kenneth

Re: [VOTE] Use probot/stale to automatically manage stale pull requests

+1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:17 PM Henning Rohde wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:16 AM Chamikara Jayalath > wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding). >> >> Thanks, >> Cham >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:05 AM Kenneth Knowles wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 9:54 AM Scott Wegner

Re: [VOTE] Code Review Process

+1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:27 PM Dan Halperin wrote: > +1 -- this is encoding what I previously thought the process was and what, > in practice, I think was often the behavior of committers anyway. > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Yifan Zou wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at

Re: [VOTE] Use probot/stale to automatically manage stale pull requests

+1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:16 AM Chamikara Jayalath wrote: > +1 (non-binding). > > Thanks, > Cham > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:05 AM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 9:54 AM Scott Wegner wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 9:39 AM Ahmet

Re: [VOTE] Code Review Process

+1 -- this is encoding what I previously thought the process was and what, in practice, I think was often the behavior of committers anyway. On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Yifan Zou wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:10 PM Robert Bradshaw > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at

Re: [VOTE] Code Review Process

+1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:10 PM Robert Bradshaw wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:06 PM Chamikara Jayalath > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Thanks, >> Cham >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:36 AM Jason Kuster >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:36 AM Ankur Goenka wrote: >>>

[Call for items] Beam June Newsletter

Hi Everyone, Here's [1] the template for the June Beam Newsletter. *Add the updates you want to share with the community by 6/5 11:59 p.m.* *Pacific Time.* I'll edit and send the final version through the

Re: [VOTE] Code Review Process

+1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:06 PM Chamikara Jayalath wrote: > +1 > > Thanks, > Cham > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:36 AM Jason Kuster > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:36 AM Ankur Goenka wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:28 AM Charles Chen wrote: >>> +1

Re: [VOTE] Code Review Process

+1 Thanks, Cham On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:36 AM Jason Kuster wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:36 AM Ankur Goenka wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:28 AM Charles Chen wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:20 AM Valentyn Tymofieiev >>> wrote: >>> +1

Re: [VOTE] Code Review Process

+1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:28 AM Charles Chen wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:20 AM Valentyn Tymofieiev > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Ahmet Altay wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: >>> +1 On

Re: [VOTE] Code Review Process

+1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:36 AM Ankur Goenka wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:28 AM Charles Chen wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:20 AM Valentyn Tymofieiev >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Ahmet Altay wrote: >>> +1 On Fri,

Re: [VOTE] Code Review Process

+1. This will allow non-committers to be actively involved in code reviews and reduce committer load. On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:28 AM Charles Chen wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:20 AM Valentyn Tymofieiev > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Ahmet Altay wrote: >>

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New committers, May 2018 edition!

Congrats! On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:26 AM Thomas Groh wrote: > Congrats, you three! > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 7:09 PM Davor Bonaci wrote: > >> Please join me and the rest of Beam PMC in welcoming the following >> contributors as our newest committers. They have significantly contributed >>

Re: [VOTE] Code Review Process

+1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:20 AM Valentyn Tymofieiev wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Ahmet Altay wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:25 AM Thomas Groh wrote: >>> As we seem to largely

Re: [VOTE] Code Review Process

+1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Ahmet Altay wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:25 AM Thomas Groh wrote: >> >>> As we seem to largely have consensus in "Reducing Committer Load for >>> Code Reviews"[1], this is a

Re: Managing outdated dependencies

Hi All, I've copied ideas proposed in the doc below for more visibility. Any comments are welcome. * - Human readable per-SDK reports on status of Beam dependencies are generated weekly and shared with the Beam community through the dev list. These reports should be concise and should

Re: [SQL] Unsupported features

Sounds a good idea! I will file the major problems later and use a task issue to track. Best, Kai ᐧ On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:10 AM Anton Kedin wrote: > This looks very helpful, thank you. > > Can you file Jiras for the major problems? Or maybe a single jira for the > whole thing with

Re: [VOTE] Code Review Process

+1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:25 AM Thomas Groh wrote: > >> As we seem to largely have consensus in "Reducing Committer Load for Code >> Reviews"[1], this is a vote to change the Beam policy on Code Reviews to >> require that >>

Re: [VOTE] Code Review Process

+1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:25 AM Thomas Groh wrote: > As we seem to largely have consensus in "Reducing Committer Load for Code > Reviews"[1], this is a vote to change the Beam policy on Code Reviews to > require that > > (1) At least one committer is involved with the code review, as either

Re: Design Proposal: Beam-Site Automation Reliability

Pre-commit filtering has come up on previous discussions as well and is an obvious improvement. I've opened BEAM-4445 [1] for this and assigned it to myself. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-4445 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:01 AM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > +1 > > Can we separate

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New committers, May 2018 edition!

Congrats, you three! On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 7:09 PM Davor Bonaci wrote: > Please join me and the rest of Beam PMC in welcoming the following > contributors as our newest committers. They have significantly contributed > to the project in different ways, and we look forward to many more >

Re: SQL shaded jars don't work. How to test?

For the shadowJar issue see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-4402. There are 280 test failures, but many of them are the same issue. I believe there is significant work on both, but I think there is significant value as well. I suppose there should be a vote on applying these rules to

[VOTE] Code Review Process

As we seem to largely have consensus in "Reducing Committer Load for Code Reviews"[1], this is a vote to change the Beam policy on Code Reviews to require that (1) At least one committer is involved with the code review, as either a reviewer or as the author (2) A contributor has approved the

Re: [VOTE] Use probot/stale to automatically manage stale pull requests

+1 (non-binding). Thanks, Cham On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:05 AM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 9:54 AM Scott Wegner wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 9:39 AM Ahmet Altay wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 9:32 AM Jason Kuster >>>

Re: [SQL] Unsupported features

This looks very helpful, thank you. Can you file Jiras for the major problems? Or maybe a single jira for the whole thing with sub-tasks for specific problems. Regards, Anton On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:12 AM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > This is extremely useful. Thanks for putting so much

Re: [VOTE] Use probot/stale to automatically manage stale pull requests

+1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 9:54 AM Scott Wegner wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 9:39 AM Ahmet Altay wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 9:32 AM Jason Kuster wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding): automating policy ensures it is applied fairly and >>> evenly and lessens the

Re: Design Proposal: Beam-Site Automation Reliability

+1 Can we separate precommit filtering and get it set up independent from this? I think there's a lot of good directions to go once it is the norm. On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:25 PM Thomas Weise wrote: > Very nice, enthusiastic +1 > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Scott Wegner wrote: > >>

Re: [VOTE] Use probot/stale to automatically manage stale pull requests

+1 (non-binding) On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 9:39 AM Ahmet Altay wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 9:32 AM Jason Kuster wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding): automating policy ensures it is applied fairly and >> evenly and lessens the load on project maintainers; hearty agreement. >> >> On Fri, Jun 1,

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New committers, May 2018 edition!

Congratulations! On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 9:41 AM Robin Qiu wrote: > Congrats to all! > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 8:42 AM Henning Rohde wrote: > >> Congratulations! >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 7:03 AM Jesse Anderson >> wrote: >> >>> Welcome! >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 2:02 AM Etienne Chauchot

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New committers, May 2018 edition!

Congrats to all! On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 8:42 AM Henning Rohde wrote: > Congratulations! > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 7:03 AM Jesse Anderson > wrote: > >> Welcome! >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 2:02 AM Etienne Chauchot >> wrote: >> >>> Congrats to all ! >>> Le jeudi 31 mai 2018 à 19:08 -0700, Davor

Re: [VOTE] Use probot/stale to automatically manage stale pull requests

+1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 9:32 AM Jason Kuster wrote: > +1 (non-binding): automating policy ensures it is applied fairly and > evenly and lessens the load on project maintainers; hearty agreement. > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 9:25 AM Alan Myrvold wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) I updated the pull

Re: SQL shaded jars don't work. How to test?

Spotless is slightly off topic and less serious than test coverage problems, but see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-4394. On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 9:30 AM Scott Wegner wrote: > Andrew, it sounds like you're suggesting testShadowJar and enableSpotless > should also be the default for

Re: [VOTE] Use probot/stale to automatically manage stale pull requests

+1 (non-binding): automating policy ensures it is applied fairly and evenly and lessens the load on project maintainers; hearty agreement. On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 9:25 AM Alan Myrvold wrote: > +1 (non-binding) I updated the pull request to be 60 days (instead of 90) > to match the contribute

Re: SQL shaded jars don't work. How to test?

Andrew, it sounds like you're suggesting testShadowJar and enableSpotless should also be the default for all modules? Do you have an idea of how much effort is required for migrating? For failOnWarning / ErrorProne, the migration is pretty straightforward, so I created starter bugs for each module

Re: [VOTE] Use probot/stale to automatically manage stale pull requests

+1 (non-binding) I updated the pull request to be 60 days (instead of 90) to match the contribute policy. On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 9:21 AM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > Hi all, > > Following the discussion, please vote on the move to activate > probot/stale [3] to notify authors of stale PRs per

[VOTE] Use probot/stale to automatically manage stale pull requests

Hi all, Following the discussion, please vote on the move to activate probot/stale [3] to notify authors of stale PRs per current policy and then close them after a 7 day grace period. For more details, see: - our stale PR policy [1] - the discussion thread [2] - Probot stale [3] - BEAM

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

A vote makes sense. The proposed config is at https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5532/files and will mark pull requests as stale after 90 days and close them 7 days later. Issues are not affected. On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 9:14 AM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > Ismael had mentioned to vote on this, so

Re: Closing (automatically?) inactive pull requests

Ismael had mentioned to vote on this, so let's do that now to make sure no one missed this discussion. On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:33 PM Alan Myrvold wrote: > Thanks. I can look into adding the stale.yaml file for old pull requests/ > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 8:07 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > >>

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New committers, May 2018 edition!

Congratulations! On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 7:03 AM Jesse Anderson wrote: > Welcome! > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 2:02 AM Etienne Chauchot > wrote: > >> Congrats to all ! >> Le jeudi 31 mai 2018 à 19:08 -0700, Davor Bonaci a écrit : >> >> Please join me and the rest of Beam PMC in welcoming the

Re: [VOTE] Go SDK

Thanks, Davor! On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 7:10 PM Davor Bonaci wrote: > The IP clearance document has been filed into Foundation records, and is > currently under review. No further action necessary, unless we hear back. > > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Henning Rohde > wrote: > >> Thanks a

Re: Documenting Github PR jenkins trigger phrases

This is tracked by https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3068 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 7:38 AM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > Any progress on this ? Is there a JIRA to track it ? > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:02 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > > > > Agree, I thought there's already a PR about that.

Re: [Proposal] Apache Beam Swag Store

We are very close to launching the store --- we should have news next week! On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 at 15:43 Ismaël Mejía wrote: > Any news on this ? > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 1:46 AM Matthias Baetens > wrote: > > > > +1 > > Awesome stuff, thanks for the effort Gris! > > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at

Re: [Proposal] Apache Beam Swag Store

Any news on this ? On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 1:46 AM Matthias Baetens wrote: > > +1 > Awesome stuff, thanks for the effort Gris! > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Griselda Cuevas > wrote: > > > Excellent - we're getting approval from the trademark@ folks. I'll update > > the thread when I have

Re: [PROPOSAL] Preparing 2.5.0 release next week

Hi JB and team, Very excited to hear that the release process of python SDK 2.5 has started. Can’t wait to use it for streaming on Dataflow. Just a silly question though - how long the release process typically takes? Thx in advance. Jasper On Thu, 31 May 2018 at 11:14 pm, Jean-Baptiste

Re: Documenting Github PR jenkins trigger phrases

Any progress on this ? Is there a JIRA to track it ? On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:02 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > Agree, I thought there's already a PR about that. > > Regards > JB > > On 11/05/2018 16:11, Alexey Romanenko wrote: > > +1 to add such reference guide of Jenkins commands to

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New committers, May 2018 edition!

Welcome! On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 2:02 AM Etienne Chauchot wrote: > Congrats to all ! > Le jeudi 31 mai 2018 à 19:08 -0700, Davor Bonaci a écrit : > > Please join me and the rest of Beam PMC in welcoming the following > contributors as our newest committers. They have significantly contributed > to

Re: Survey: what is everyone working on that you want to share?

Hi Kenn,Sorry for the late answer, for myself, what I'm currently working on: 1. Add Nexmark to continuous integration as postcommits and export response times to performance dashboards: ticket: htt ps://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-

Re: parquet/beam

This is an interesting direction. I had looked at Arrow as a default Coder replacement for schema PCollections, and that didn't seem fruitful as we would need to create Arrow batches of size 1. However using Arrow to encode batches over the FnAPI might indeed be an interesting approach. Streaming

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New committers, May 2018 edition!

Congrats to all ! Le jeudi 31 mai 2018 à 19:08 -0700, Davor Bonaci a écrit : > Please join me and the rest of Beam PMC in welcoming the following > contributors as our newest committers. They have > significantly contributed to the project in different ways, and we look > forward to many more

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New committers, May 2018 edition!

Great news, congrats all! On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 at 08:32 Holden Karau wrote: > Congrats all! > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:12 AM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > >> Congratulations! >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 8:26 AM Pei HE wrote: >> > >> > Congrats! >> > >> > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:12 PM, Charles Chen

Re: "Radically modular data ingestion APIs in Apache Beam" @ Strata - slides available

Hey Ismaël, That totally makes sense, I will work on this on the weekend and send a PR. Cheers, Matthias On Thu, 31 May 2018 at 09:45 Ismaël Mejía wrote: > Great ! > > Matthias I think it makes sense to have these guidelines in the beam > site better than a google doc. Can you please submit a

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New committers, May 2018 edition!

Congrats all! On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:12 AM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > Congratulations! > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 8:26 AM Pei HE wrote: > > > > Congrats! > > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:12 PM, Charles Chen wrote: > > > Congratulations everyone! > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 31, 2018, 10:14 PM

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New committers, May 2018 edition!

Congratulations! On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 8:26 AM Pei HE wrote: > > Congrats! > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:12 PM, Charles Chen wrote: > > Congratulations everyone! > > > > > > On Thu, May 31, 2018, 10:14 PM Pablo Estrada wrote: > >> > >> Thanks to the PMC! Very humbled and excited to keep taking

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New committers, May 2018 edition!

Congrats! On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:12 PM, Charles Chen wrote: > Congratulations everyone! > > > On Thu, May 31, 2018, 10:14 PM Pablo Estrada wrote: >> >> Thanks to the PMC! Very humbled and excited to keep taking part in this >> great community. >> :) >> -P. >> >> >> On Thu, May 31, 2018, 10:10

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New committers, May 2018 edition!

Congratulations everyone! On Thu, May 31, 2018, 10:14 PM Pablo Estrada wrote: > Thanks to the PMC! Very humbled and excited to keep taking part in this > great community. > :) > -P. > > > On Thu, May 31, 2018, 10:10 PM Tim wrote: > >> Congratulations! >> >> >> Tim >> >> On 1 Jun 2018, at