On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 5:59 PM Pablo Estrada wrote:
> +chad...@gmail.com is this consistent with behavior
> that you observed?
>
I honestly can't recall, sorry. I just remember that while I was testing I
updated sdk version and some logging stopped. I *think* I was missing the
state/message
+chad...@gmail.com is this consistent with behavior
that you observed?
+Udi Meiri sorry about the short notice on this. I know
you are working on RC1. But do you think this should be a blocker for
2.18.0? I have https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-8976 to track
that.
On Mon, Dec 16,
Hi all,
So there are two places where we log:
1. At pipeline construction.
2. At worker startup, to execute user code in workers.
The workers have always set up their logging handlers properly, but
pipeline construction setup is up to the user.
If the user doesn't set it up, we could have a
Hi Maria,
thanks for putting this together. It's large, so a bit hard to follow - but
that's probably just an indication of the complexity of Beam's
communication channels.
FWIW, I found that reading from the top down was useful (or rather, from
the top, backwards from the arrows).
It is an
Hi Rory,
Here at Beam we are still in a major long-term push to support Java 11 for
pipeline authoring and JRE 11 for execution. Many subtasks are filed under
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-2530 for this.
Since you are working with so many Apache projects, can you share
information
I want to highlight that this design works for definitely more runners than
just Dataflow. I see two pieces of it that I want to bring onto the thread:
1. A new kind of "unbounded source" which is a periodic refresh of a
bounded source, and use that as a side input. Each main input element has a
+1 (non-binding)
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 1:12 PM Mark Liu wrote:
> +1
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 11:31 AM Daniel Oliveira
> wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding)
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 5:24 PM Kyle Weaver wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 3:10 AM Jan Lukavský
+1
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 11:31 AM Daniel Oliveira
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 5:24 PM Kyle Weaver wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding)
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 3:10 AM Jan Lukavský wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>> On 12/13/19 7:22 PM, Pablo Estrada wrote:
>>>
>>> +1
Additional process is a two-edged sword: it can help move stuff
forward, to the correct decision, but it can also add significant
overhead.
I think there are many proposals for which the existing processes of
deriving consensus (over email, possibly followed by a formal vote or
lazy consensus)
Thank you, Pablo and Chamikara.
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 12:49 PM Tomo Suzuki wrote:
>
> Hi Beam developers,
>
> Can somebody review/merge this javadoc update? The example code there
> was not compiling.
> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/10256 "Updating Javadoc of FileIO example"
>
> The
+1 (non-binding)
On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 5:24 PM Kyle Weaver wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 3:10 AM Jan Lukavský wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding)
>> On 12/13/19 7:22 PM, Pablo Estrada wrote:
>>
>> +1 (binding)
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 8:47 AM Maximilian Michels
>>
The remaining 4 open blockers all have recently merged cherrypicks (at
least 1 blocker is waiting on verification since it's a release process
issue).
Will attempt an RC today.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 5:33 PM Udi Meiri wrote:
> Also marked 3 Jiras from these cherrypicks as blockers .
> Current
Hi Beam developers,
Can somebody review/merge this javadoc update? The example code there
was not compiling.
https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/10256 "Updating Javadoc of FileIO example"
The original author of the javadoc (jkff) wrote my proposal is good.
--
Regards,
Tomo
ERROR: File 'src/build/dependencyUpdates/beam-dependency-check-report.html' does not exist
14 matches
Mail list logo
