Thank you Rebo. I agree with reverting first and then figure out the next
steps.
Here is a PR to revert your change:
https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14267
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 4:02 PM Robert Burke wrote:
> Looking at the history it seems that before the python text was added,
>
Oh, sheesh. Very sorry. This is very inappropriate. I apologize.
Kenn
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 6:00 PM Andrew Pilloud wrote:
> Wrong list...
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 5:49 PM Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 5:48 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>
Wrong list...
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 5:49 PM Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 5:48 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Please vote on the proposal for Tomo Suzuki to become a committer in the
>> Apache Beam project, as follows:
>>
>> [ ] +1, Approve the
+1
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 5:48 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please vote on the proposal for Tomo Suzuki to become a committer in the
> Apache Beam project, as follows:
>
> [ ] +1, Approve the proposal for the candidate to become a committer
> [ ] -1, Disapprove the proposal for the
Hi all,
Please vote on the proposal for Tomo Suzuki to become a committer in the
Apache Beam project, as follows:
[ ] +1, Approve the proposal for the candidate to become a committer
[ ] -1, Disapprove the proposal for the candidate to become a committer
The vote will be open for at least 72
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:53 AM Jan Lukavský wrote:
> I get this, this makes totally sense. But - what else could the
> propagation meaningfully do, then to propagate the 10 seconds triggering to
> the very first GBK(s) and then try to push the outcome of these PTransforms
> as fast as possible
Looking at the history it seems that before the python text was added,
pkg.go.dev can parse the license stack just fine. It doesn't recognize the
PSF license, and fails closed entirely as a result.
I've filed an issue with pkg.go.dev (
https://github.com/golang/go/issues/45095). If the bug is
Thank you for this email.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 2:32 PM Brian Hulette wrote:
> I just noticed that there was a recent change to our LICENSE file to make
> it exactly match the Apache 2.0 License [1]. This seems to be the result of
> two conflicting LICENSE issues.
>
> Go LICENSE issue: The
I just noticed that there was a recent change to our LICENSE file to make
it exactly match the Apache 2.0 License [1]. This seems to be the result of
two conflicting LICENSE issues.
Go LICENSE issue: The motivation for [1] was to satisfy pkg.go.dev's
license policies [2]. Prior to the change our
Ambigous language. A lot of missing parts. I think a programming guide
must be simpler and with much more details and illustrations
Actually there are many reasons that could have produced this
regression even if the code of the runner has not changed at all: (1)
those tests weren't enabled before and now are and they weren't
passing or (2) the tests were changed or (3) my principal guess: the
translation strategy of a
That's pretty awesome. And what nice documentation!
Clicking through https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10118 and
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/10768 it looks like the actual
quarantining / unquarantining is manual, yes? So we could reach this level
with JUnit categories for Java
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 2:49 AM Jan Lukavský wrote:
> If there is no way to configure which annotations should be generated,
> then I'd be +1 for removing the checker to separated CI and adding an
> opt-in flag for the check when run locally.
>
Yes. If this answer is correct, then we are out of
You can look through the history of the PostCommit [1]. We only keep a
couple weeks of history, but it looks like we have one successful run from
Sept 10, 2020, marked as "keep forever", that ran on commit
57055262e7a6bff447eef2df1e6efcda754939ca.
Is that what you're looking for?
(Somewhat
Done.
Welcome to Beam!
Alexey
> On 16 Mar 2021, at 19:59, César Cueva Orozco wrote:
>
> Hello Team,
>
> Could you please add my user name CesarCueva19 to the contributor list?
>
> Thank you
>
> This email and its contents (including any attachments) are being sent to
> you on the condition
If there is no way to configure which annotations should be generated,
then I'd be +1 for removing the checker to separated CI and adding an
opt-in flag for the check when run locally.
We need to solve the issue for dev@ as well, as the undesirable
annotations are already digging their way to
16 matches
Mail list logo
