Re: [DISCUSS] Python SDK status and next steps

es, which was deferred while > > seeing how https://s.apache.org/splittable-do-fn played out. I've been > > working with the team and merging/reviewing most of their code, and > > have full confidence this will be coming (and on that note can vouch > > for a healthy community and s

Re: [DISCUSS] Python SDK status and next steps

ed by the default "regular" build. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> JB >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 01/31/2017 11:02 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Just one thing

Re: [VOTE] Merge Python SDK to the master branch

is more important. > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Sergio Fernández <wik...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Robert Bradshaw <

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: beam_PostCommit_Python_Verify #1111

4 tests failed due to quota errors with project resources. I do not see any more quota errors on the project, this should fix itself in the next run. Ahmet On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Apache Jenkins Server < jenk...@builds.apache.org> wrote: > See

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New committers, January 2017 edition!

ooking at code contributions > > > >alone, he authored 43 commits and reported 25 issues. Stas is very > > > >active > > > >on the mailing lists too, contributing to good discussions and > > > >proposing > > > >improvements to the Beam model. > > &

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: beam_PostCommit_Python_Verify #1308

I am looking at this right now, It is caused by https://github.com/apache/ beam/pull/2041. https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2045 has a fix. Thank you, Ahmet On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 12:13 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > It seems Python build is failing. > > Gonna take a

tf.Transform library for using TensorFlow with Beam

Hi all, Yesterday, there was an announcement from TensorFlow community about the new tf.Transform library [1]. It is a library that allows users to define pre-processing pipelines and run using large scale data processing frameworks. It is a library specifically designed to work with Apache Beam.

Re: [DISCUSS] Python SDK status and next steps

Thank you all for the comments so far. I would follow the process as suggested by Davor and others in this thread. Ahmet On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Sergio Fernández <wik...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.co

Re: [DISCUSS] Python SDK status and next steps

fleshed > out soon; including potentially new users/contributors that would arrive > once in master. > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/CAAzyFAxcmexUQnbF=Y > k0plmm3f5e5bqwjz4+c5doruclnxo...@mail.gmail.com > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google

Re: Release 0.6.0

>>> I also try to merge https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1739 asap. > > >>> > > >>> Regards > > >>> JB > > >>> > > >>> On 02/28/2017 09:34 AM, Amit Sela wrote: > > >>>> I'd prefer we wait to merge htt

Re: Release 0.6.0

B > > > On 03/01/2017 07:23 PM, Ahmet Altay wrote: > >> Thank you. I will start working on it. >> >> Ahmet >> >> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> I just closed the last blocking is

Release 0.6.0

Hi all, It's been about a month since the last release. I would like propose starting the next release. There are no releasing blocking bugs in JIRA [1]. Are there any release blocking issues I am missing? Unless there is an objection I will volunteer to manage this release. This will be the

Re: [DISCUSSION] Consistent use of loggers

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Tibor Kiss wrote: > This is a great idea! > > I believe Python-SDK's logging could also be enhanced (a bit differently): > Currently we are not instantiating the logger, just using the class what > logging package provides. > Shortcoming

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New committers, March 2017 edition!

Congratulations to all you! On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Chamikara Jayalath wrote: > Thanks all. Congrats to other new committers !! > > I'm very excited to join. > > - Cham > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:02 PM Mark Liu > wrote: > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.6.0, release candidate #2

t; > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > +Stas Levin <stasle...@apache.org> +Thomas Groh <tg...@google.com> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM Eugene Kirpichov < > kirpic...@google.com > > > > > > &g

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release 0.6.0, release candidate #2

I'm happy to announce that we have unanimously approved this release. There are 7 approving votes, 4 of which are binding: * Aljoscha Krettek * Davor Bonaci * Ismaël Mejía * Jean-Baptiste Onofré * Robert Bradshaw * Ted Yu * Tibor Kiss There are no disapproving votes. Thanks everyone! Ahmet

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release 0.6.0, release candidate #2

Excellent! > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017, 6:13 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > Hi Ahmet, > > > > it seems Jira is not up to date: 0.6.0 version is not flagged as > > "Released". > > > > Can you fix that please ? > &

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release 0.6.0, release candidate #2

amazing! Ahmet On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > I'm happy to announce that we have unanimously approved this release. > > There are 7 approving votes, 4 of which are binding: > * Aljoscha Krettek > * Davor Bonaci > * Ismaël Mejía

Re: Python build artifacts seem to be misconfigured

This is also root cause for the flakiness in test_using_slow_impl very flaky locally tests (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1910). Kenn, have you found anything that might explain why tox is not deleting them? Ahmet On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Robert Bradshaw <

Re: Python build artifacts seem to be misconfigured

if it can be configured that all (or, as many as > possible) build-generated files use one specific directory -- "target/". > Likely, all problems would just go away. > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com.invalid> > wrote: > &g

[VOTE] Release 0.6.0, release candidate #1

Hi everyone, Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 0.6.0, as follows: [ ] +1, Approve the release [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments) The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes: * JIRA release notes [1], *

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.6.0, release candidate #2

It's not something local that happens in my env. so if > anyone else could validate this it would be great. > > Amit > > On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 9:48 PM Robert Bradshaw > <rober...@google.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Ahmet Altay

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.6.0, release candidate #2

shall not hold up the release. > > Thanks for putting this RC together! > > - Tibor > > On 3/11/17, 6:05 AM, "Ahmet Altay" <al...@google.com.INVALID> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version &

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.6.0, release candidate #1

Let's cancel the vote on RC1 and I will start a new one. I think Davor had a great summary and I will make those changes for RC2. I only have one comment, I would rather keep a single file format (.zip) instead of using both file formats (.zip, .tar.gz). I think this is better for having a single

Re: First time PR question: Multiple issues addressed in single change

Hi Ankur On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Ankur Chauhan wrote: > Hi all, > > This is my first go at contributing some simple changes to the BigTableIO > in beam. The main intent was to update the dependency to 0.9.5.1 from the > current 0.9.2 which would address some changes

[VOTE] Release 0.6.0, release candidate #2

Hi everyone, Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version 0.6.0, as follows: [ ] +1, Approve the release [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments) The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes: * JIRA release notes [1],

Re: [DISCUSS] Beam pipeline logical and physical DAGs visualization.

+1, this looks great and it will be very useful for users to understand their pipelines. On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Pei HE wrote: > Hi all, > While working on JStorm and MapReduce runners, I found that it is very > helpful to understand Beam pipelines by visualizing them.

Re: Hello from a newbie to the data world living in the city by the bay!

Welcome both of you! Some helpful starting points: - Contribution guide [1] - Unassigned starter issues in JIRA [2] Ahmet [1] https://beam.apache.org/contribute/contribution-guide/ [2]

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New committers, August 2017 edition!

Congratulations to all of you. Well deserved and thank you for your contributions. On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:43 AM, tarush grover wrote: > Congratulations!! > > Regards, > Tarush > > On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 at 11:11 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > > > Please

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.1.0, release candidate #3

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Ismaël Mejía wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > - Validated signatures OK > - mvn clean verify -Prelease on both OpenJDK 1.7 and Oracle JDK 8 with > the docker development images (WIP), both OK > - Run WordCount on local Flink and Spark runners OK >

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.1.0, release candidate #1

-1 Thank you JB. Unfortunately I do not want to approve this RC :(. My reason is that there are two open issues in the burndown list ( https://s.apache.org/beam-2.1.0-burndown). I think we should either fix them or explicitly move them out of the list. BEAM-2595 is a regression in usability (not

Re: [CANCEL][VOTE] Release 2.1.0, release candidate #1

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 5:08 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi all, > > as discussed, I cancel the vote on RC1 in order to prepare a RC2. > > The RC2 should include the following fixes: > > - BEAM-2595 is already fixed and cherry-picked on release-2.1.0 branch > - BEAM-2271

Re: Mixed-Language Pipelines

Thank you Thomas. I think this will especially be great for Python SDK, allowing it to tap into many sources that exist in the Java SDK. I added my comments. Ahmet On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Thomas Groh wrote: > Hey everyone; > > I've been working on a design

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.1.0, release candidate #1

tion to check to open Jira on the release > > target. I > > just missed these two Jira, sorry about that. > > > > I don't think an additional list is required. > > > > I will cancel this vote and cut a RC2 as soon as BEAM-2595 and BEAM-2771 > > are > > add

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.1.0, release candidate #2

Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> >> So, I guess you are voting +1 on RC2, correct (just for the tracking) ? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> On 07/19/2017 08:00 AM, Ahmet Altay wrote: >>> &

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.1.0, release candidate #2

Thank you JB. I validated python wordcount and mobile gaming examples on Linux. Found one issue (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-2636). This does not need to be a blocking issue for RC2, but if we end up having a RC3 we should consider fixing this issue. Ahmet On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at

Re: Passing pipeline options into PTransforms and Filesystems in Python

+1 to the above responses to for passing option into PTransforms. As Robert mentioned in the JIRA issue, filesystem plug-ins are in a different category. It is reasonable for them to create credentials based on options/environment variables. We could have a protocol for instantiating file system

Re: [Proposal] Submitting pipelines to Runners in another language

Thank you Sourabh. I added my comments as well and +1 to Kenn. On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > I added a few detailed comments. I definitely think we should move forward > on this to get Python pipelines running on all our our runners, and >

Re: Community hackathon

+1, this is a great idea. On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 3:54 AM, JingsongLee wrote: > +1 > best, > Jingsonglee > --From:Ted > Yu Time:2017 Apr 24 (Mon) 17:29To:dev < >

Re: [INFO] Build fails on master

Hey, are you referring to a specifc Jenkins build? If not could you share the actual error? Last python post commit test was successful ( https://builds.apache.org/view/A-D/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Python_Verify/2887/), although the one before that failed. The failure looks like a flaked to

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.1.0, release candidate #3

+1, Thank you JB! - I verified the hashes for apache-beam-2.1.0-python.zip, apache-beam-2.1.0-source-release.zip files - Unzipped apache-beam-2.1.0-source-release.zip and ran python packaging and unittests using tox - Ran python wordcount and mobile gaming examples with DirectRunner and

Re: Policy for stale PRs

> JB > > > > On Aug 15, 2017, 01:29, at 01:29, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >The proposal makes sense. > > > > > >If the author of PR doesn't respond for 90 days, the PR is likely out > > >of > > >sync with current repo. >

Re: Policy for stale PRs

certainly reasonable; 30 might be too > > > short) if the author has not responded to actionable feedback. > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Sourabh Bajaj < > > > sourabhba...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > >> Some proje

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release 2.1.0, release candidate #3

I believe this release is complete now. Thank you JB for pushing this release, and everyone else who contributed to it. On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > Remaining items for closing this release are: > - Move source distribution from de

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release 2.1.0, release candidate #3

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > Thank you JB. > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> Hi >> >> This vote passed with only +1. >> >> I'm promoting

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release 2.1.0, release candidate #3

gt;> >> > >>> >>> Hi, > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Spark runner was tested with word count example and a more > >>complex > >>> session > >>> >>> based application on a yarn cluster. > >&g

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release 2.1.0, release candidate #3

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > >> Thank you JB. >> >> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net&

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release 2.1.0, release candidate #3

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: >> >

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release 2.1.0, release candidate #3

Remaining items for closing this release are: - Move source distribution from dev repository to release repository in dist.apache.org - Finalize the version in JIRA. - Announce on user@ and other places. On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > > >

Re: First stable release completed!

Congratulations everyone, this is great! On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > Awesome. A huge step. > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:30 AM, Andrew Psaltis > wrote: > > > This is fantastic. Great job! > > On Wed, May 17, 2017

Re: Windows OS Compatibility and Jenkins Postcommit

Thank you Luke, this is great! I hope that we will see a mac version of this at some point. It looks like there is no python binary and python tests are failing for that. Ahmet On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Flavio Fiszman wrote: > Thanks Luke! I'm working on

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Beam 2.1.0 release next week ?

+1 For Python, there are 2 hard blocking issues (and 2 nice to haves) all tagged as blocking 2.1.0 [1]. Ahmet [1]

Re: low availability in the coming 4 weeks

Congratulations! On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Congrats and enjoy ! > > Regards > JB > > > On 05/25/2017 05:33 AM, Mingmin Xu wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> >> I'll take 4 weeks off to take care of my new born baby. I'm very glad that >>

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInstall #3982

Thank you Kenn. https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/3278 is for fixing the lint errors, On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > On the surface, it looks like Python lint failed, but I failed after a few > seconds to track down the actionable error message. >

Re: First stable release: version designation?

I would also like to vote for strong 2.0 with the same reasons as Dan mentioned. It will be less confusing for the users overall. Ahmet On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > Strongly for 2.0.0: > * Aljoscha > * Cham > * Dan > * Luke > > Slight preference

Re: Congratulations Davor!

Congratulations, well deserved! On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Andrew Psaltis wrote: > Congrats Davor! > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Melissa Pashniak < > meliss...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > > > Congratulations Davor! > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:32

Re: Problem while upgrading lib

google-apitools dependency (which is required for GCS) does not work with oauth2client >= 4.0.0 [1]. Because of this Beam Python SDK also does not work with oauth2client >= 4.0.0 versions, and this is captured correctly in the setup.py [2]. Ahmet [1]

Re: Merge branch DSL_SQL to master

+1 Thanks to all contributors/reviewers! On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Kai Jiang wrote: > +1 looking forward to this. > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017, 09:53 Tyler Akidau > wrote: > > > +1, thanks for all the hard work to everyone that contributed! > >

Ahmet offline for the next 3 weeks

Hi all, I will be on vacation starting tomorrow through first week of October. I would not be able to respond to most of the things. Happy Beaming, Ahmet

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release 2.1.0, release candidate #3

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > I believe this release is complete now. Thank you JB for pushing this > release, and everyone else who contributed to it. > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wro

Re: New contributor

Welcome Vilhem! On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Etienne Chauchot wrote: > Welcome! > > > > Le 17/10/2017 à 22:18, Vilhelm von Ehrenheim a écrit : > >> Hi everyone! >> My name is Vilhelm von Ehrenheim and I would like to start contributing to >> Beam. >> I work as a Data

Re: Version 2.2.0 release date

Hi Stefania, Release candidate for 2.2.0 is currently being voted [1]. The release will happen after a successful vote. Ahmet [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/da2acabdb15c9f8d11351f9167633a 4b089664fe3cce014ba619c937@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Stefania

Re: [DISCUSS] Thinking about Beam 3.x roadmap and release schedule

My wishlist for 2018 would be - Python 3 support - Python SDK to work with more runners. This is covered in portability in general. I would like to see an enterprise grade Python SDK that can run on a range of Beam runners. - Related to the above item, full streaming support with Python SDK. -

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

Thank you Reuven! I tweeted the release announcement on Beam's account. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Reuven Lax wrote: > Technically it's a backwards-incompatible change, however if we are > convinced the risk is low we could do it. > > As mentioned on the original thread,

Re: A question regarding BEAM-3280

this problem. I could not assign to you. (I guess you first need to be added as a contributor to the project). I added comment mentioning that you are working on this issue. Thank you again! Ahmet > > Regards, > Norio Akagi > > > On Dec 11, 2017, at 4:50 PM, Ahmet Altay

Re: [jira] [Commented] (BEAM-3357) Python SDK head fails to run tests due to Requirement.parse('protobuf<=3.4.0,>=3.2.0')

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > I am also in favor of pinning as an immediate fix, bumping the bound > otherwise. > > Regarding putting an upper bound to avoid being broken, the last two > breaks have been due to just having an (unneeded) upper

Re: [jira] [Commented] (BEAM-3357) Python SDK head fails to run tests due to Requirement.parse('protobuf<=3.4.0,>=3.2.0')

other hand it will prevent breaking of already released versions. > > Thanks, > Cham > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:19 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> >> wrote: >>

Re: [jira] [Commented] (BEAM-3357) Python SDK head fails to run tests due to Requirement.parse('protobuf<=3.4.0,>=3.2.0')

te: > > +1 to pinning to exact versions, to be sure that our releases do not > break > > when newer versions of dependencies are released. > > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:44 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at

Re: A personal update

Welcome back! Looking forward to your contributions. Ahmet On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Jesse Anderson wrote: > Congrats! > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017, 5:54 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > >> Hi Davor, >> >> welcome back !! >> >> It's really

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #4

+1 I verified the python quick start on Windows. I could not verify the documentation changes because the staged version expired. On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Eugene Kirpichov < kirpic...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > Thanks Luke. I was able to validate quickstart on Dataflow and on Spark

Re: Python SDK DirectRunner (new feature)

Thank you María. On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 5:31 PM, María García Herrero < mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > Hello, > > I recently worked on adding a bundle retry for the Python SDK DirectRunner > ( > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-2718). > > The goal was to have a more reliable

Re: HDFS Support for Python SDK

Thank you Udi, this is a great comparison of available options. On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Udi Meiri wrote: > Hi, > > I've done some research into implementing HDFS support for Python SDK and > I'd like your input. This work is regarding BEAM-3099 >

Re: python3 support schedule

For reference https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1251 is the umbrella issue tracking python3 support in the core SDK. There needs to be additional runner specific work (e.g. DataflowRunner needs to use python3 binary on its workers) once the core work is completed. Ahmet On Thu, Nov 2,

Re: [DISCUSS] Move away from Apache Maven as build tool

Has anyone started a POC with Bazel? I would be interested in helping that effort. On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Lukasz Cwik wrote: > I have started a POC for using Gradle here: > https://github.com/lukecwik/incubator-beam/tree/gradle > > Things that work: > *

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Eugene Kirpichov wrote: > I've sent the poll https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ > 5bc2e184a24de9dbc8184ffd2720d1894010497d47d956b395e037df@% > 3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E > Will figure out how to tweet from @ApacheBeam, and sent the Twitter

Re: A question regarding BEAM-3280

Hi Norio, Thank you for your interest. If you would like to work on this I can assign the JIRA to you. I do not think this change in sufficient or correct. This reads as if SplitLinesToWordsFn returns a Tuple of things, however instead it produces three unrelated collections of different types.

Re: [Proposal] Sharing Neville's post and upcoming meetups in the Twitter handle

This makes sense to me. I published the first tweet, we can publish the second one perhaps closer to the event. Ahmet On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Griselda Cuevas wrote: > Hi everyone - What do you think about sharing Neville's blogpost[1] about > the road to Scio

Re: [PROPOSAL] Preparing 2.5.0 release next week

Hi JB, We found an issue related to using side inputs in streaming mode using python SDK. Charles is currently trying to find the root cause. Would you be able to give him some additional time to investigate the issue? Charles, do you have a JIRA issue on the blocker list? Thank you everyone

Re: [VOTE] Go SDK

+1 (binding) Congratulations to the team! On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Alan Myrvold wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > Nice work! > > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:18 AM Pablo Estrada wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> Very excited to see this! >> >> On Tue, May

Re: [PROPOSAL] Preparing 2.5.0 release next week

Hi JB and all, I wanted to follow up on my previous email. The python streaming issue I mentioned is resolved and removed from the blocker list. Blocker list is empty now. You can go ahead with the release branch cut when you are ready. Thank you, Ahmet On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 8:43 AM,

Re: [PROPOSAL] Preparing 2.5.0 release next week

ht be a release blocker, could you please add it to the list? > > Just an FYI. Since the fix is likely small fixes to build file it seems ok > to cut the branch and cherry pick. > > Kenn > > On Thu, May 17, 2018, 17:41 Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > >&g

Re: [VOTE] Policies for managing Beam dependencies

I think this is relevant for users. It makes sense for users to know about how Beam work with its dependencies and understand how conflicts will be addressed and when dependencies will be upgraded. On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > Do you think this has relevance for

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

Thank you JB. For the wheel artifacts, Boyuan was trying to get the instructions from Robert and reproduce the artifacts. She can help you with this if you need. Ahmet On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:29 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi, > > sorry, I missed wheel artifact. Something to add on

Re: [PROPOSAL] Merge samza-runner to master

Thank you for everyone who contributed to this runner. It is really great to see this. Xinyu, for the people like myself who were not following the development closely, could you talk about missing pieces, work in progress, future plans? On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Rafael Fernandez wrote:

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

Ismaël, I believe Pablo's https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5609 is fixing the issue by changing the findbugs back to "com.github.stephenc.findbugs". Is this what you are referring to? Ahmet On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Boyuan Zhang wrote: > Hey JB, > > I added some instructions about

Re: Beam Dependency Check Report (2018-06-13)

Thanks Yifan, this is great! My unsolicited feedback: - Could it warn against dependencies that did not get updates for a long time? For python there were examples of a dependency being abandoned by its own developers and it took us a while to figure it out and switch to maintained one.

Re: Proposal: keeping post-commit tests green

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Mikhail Gryzykhin wrote: > Hi Ahmet, > > I've checked on tests status and most of other tests are green 98% of the > time. So I feel that we do not need any explicit actions for those tests. > Is it going to be a one time action to fix existing flaky tests? Or

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

com/apache/beam/pull/5609/commits/ >>>>>> 32c7df706e970557f154ff6bc521b2e00f9d09ab >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>

Re: Proposal: keeping post-commit tests green

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 3:45 PM, Mikhail Gryzykhin wrote: > Hello everybody, > > Thanks everyone. I didn't receive any more feedback on the design proposal > document [1] and I believe we've reached consensus. I've added > implementation tasks in JIRA (BEAM-4559 [2]) and will start coding soon.

Re: [DISCUSS] Releasing Beam in the presence of emergencies

Thank you Rafael. I think it is a good idea to include our commitment, including concrete steps on our website. This would make it easier for enterprise users to choose Beam. Even though this is already partially Apache policy and there is precedence in our project with 2.1.1 release; increasing

Re: Proposing interactive beam runner

Thank you Sindy. I like the demo; it looks great. This would be interesting to a lot of users. What are your plans for moving this forward? What kind of an input you are looking for? Ahmet On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Eugene Kirpichov wrote: > This is awesome, thanks Sindy! I hope that

Re: [PROPOSAL] Preparing 2.5.0 release next week

issue about ParquetIO on HDFS/S3 that I would like to > investigate with the team. > Do you know who is currently investigating the ParquetIO issue? Do you need help with that? > > I plan to start the release process asap, hopefully later today. > > Regards > JB > >

Re: Hello Beam!

Welcome Rui! On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Rui Wang wrote: > Hi there, > > I am Rui (pronounced as same as "Ray")! > > I recently joined Google Cloud. Beam is a very interesting project and I > cannot wait to contribute to it! > > > Thanks, > Rui >

Re: [PROPOSAL] Preparing 2.5.0 release next week

to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-4060 >> > >> > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:16 AM Scott Wegner > > <mailto:sweg...@google.com>> wrote: >> > >> > J.B., can you give any context on what metadata is missing

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

Congratulations to all of you! On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 7:26 PM, Chamikara Jayalath wrote: > Congrats to all 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

Re: [VOTE] Policies for managing Beam dependencies

+1 Thank you for driving these decisions. I would make a meta-point, all other recent votes and if passes this one could be converted to web site documents at some point in an easily accessible and linkable way. On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Chamikara Jayalath wrote: > Hi All, > > We

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: [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: Using user developped source in streamline python

Hi Sébastien, Currently there is no work in progress for including the write transforms for the locations you listed. You could develop your own version if interested. Please see WriteToBigquery transform [1] for reference. Ahmet [1]

Re: Filtered Pre-commit triggering is BACK!

Two of my PRs with python changes did not trigger any pre-commits. Could it be related to this change? https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5768 https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5800 Ahmet On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Andrew Pilloud wrote: > Awesome! This will save so much time

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >