+1 for 3.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:35 PM Pablo Estrada wrote:
> +1 for 3. Thanks Ning.
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 10:54 AM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>
>> +1 for [3]
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 5:47 PM Robert Bradshaw
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for [3] as well.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 5:40 P
+1 for removing Python 2.7 support sooner than later.
I recently added a small feature in Beam Python and I found that having to
write code that worked with Python2 was quite awkward and time consuming
(needing to make sure code works for both 2 and 3 and doubling the Jenkins
running time), and I
/github.com/google/yapf/issues/530 . In the meantime,
> https://pypi.org/project/yapf/#potentially-frequently-asked-questions
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 12:17 PM David Yan wrote:
> >
> > Hi, I just tried out the yapf formatter and I noticed that sometimes
> it's making the o
Hi, I just tried out the yapf formatter and I noticed that sometimes it's
making the original code a lot less readable.
In the below example, - is the original, + is after running the yapf
formatter. Looks like the problem is with the method chaining pattern.
How feasible is it to have yapf identif
semantics that depend on processing time (e.g. processing time
triggers) will be deterministic.
David
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 4:39 PM Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> Yes, there are plans to support streaming for interactive beam. David
> Yan (cc'd) is leading this effort.
>
> On Thu,
