Re: Possibility for GSoC 2016

Hi Milindu, I'm taking a look this morning (my time). I keep you posted. Regards JB On 03/23/2016 11:41 PM, Milindu Sanoj Kumarage wrote: Hi JB, You checked my proposal? :) The deadline for proposal submission is on March 26, 2016 at 00:30 (IST) according to the GSoC 2016 timeline :) Regard

Re: GitHub mirroring broken

Yes, same issue with other Apache projects (including TLP). It's not yet completely fixed. Regards JB On 03/24/2016 06:32 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: Mirroring of our Apache git repository to GitHub seems to be broken for the last 6 hours or so. There has been some flakiness last night, but now it

Re: [PROPOSAL] Pipeline Runner API design doc

Hi Kenn, thanks for the update. I'm reading it now. Regards JB On 03/23/2016 10:17 PM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: Hi everyone, Incorporating the feedback from the 1-pager I circulated a week ago, I have put together a concrete design document for the new API(s). https://docs.google.com/document/

GitHub mirroring broken

Mirroring of our Apache git repository to GitHub seems to be broken for the last 6 hours or so. There has been some flakiness last night, but now it seems to be completely broken. It is not just us; other projects are reporting this too. For now, I've just commented on the Zeppelin's INFRA issue [

[HEADS UP] Directory reorganization

Hi everyone, We pushed a pull request [1] that somewhat reorganizes directories in the repository. This is the first step towards the organization proposed in the document we shared a few weeks ago. Also, JB's pull request [2] changing Maven coordinates got merged too. I apologize for the unfortun

Re: Possibility for GSoC 2016

Hi JB, You checked my proposal? :) The deadline for proposal submission is on March 26, 2016 at 00:30 (IST) according to the GSoC 2016 timeline :) Regards, Milindu Sanoj Kumarage LinkedIn | GitHub | agentmilindu.com On

Re: Capability matrix question

+1 to Metric too. Sounds like there's consensus on renaming to something, likely [P]Metric. I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-147 to track the actual work. On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Dan Halperin wrote: > +1 @Amit => -1 to Counter but +1 to Metric. > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2

[PROPOSAL] Pipeline Runner API design doc

Hi everyone, Incorporating the feedback from the 1-pager I circulated a week ago, I have put together a concrete design document for the new API(s). https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bao-5B6uBuf-kwH1meenAuXXS0c9cBQ1B2J59I3FiyI/edit?usp=sharing I appreciate any and all feedback on the design.

Re: Capability matrix question

+1 to Metric Regards JB On 03/23/2016 09:56 PM, Dan Halperin wrote: +1 @Amit => -1 to Counter but +1 to Metric. On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Amit Sela wrote: IMHO Counters just count.. Metrics measure things, so I think metrics sounds better. Accumulators and Aggregators would have be

Re: Capability matrix question

+1 @Amit => -1 to Counter but +1 to Metric. On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Amit Sela wrote: > IMHO Counters just count.. Metrics measure things, so I think metrics > sounds better. Accumulators and Aggregators would have been good as well if > they weren't so overloaded. > That's just my tho

Re: Capability matrix question

IMHO Counters just count.. Metrics measure things, so I think metrics sounds better. Accumulators and Aggregators would have been good as well if they weren't so overloaded. That's just my thoughts here though.. On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 10:38 PM Robert Bradshaw wrote: > +1 to renaming this. [P]C

Re: Capability matrix question

+1 to renaming this. [P]Counter is another option. On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > +1 to considering "metric" / PMetric / etc. > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Amit Sela wrote: > >> How about "PMetric" ? >> >> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 16:53 Frances Perry wrote: >> >>

Re: Draft Contribution Guide

Hi Max, I would keep a "stronger statement", something like: "Committers always provide a pull request. This pull request has to be merged cleanly, and doesn't break the build (including test, checkstyle, documentation). The pull request has to be reviewed and only pushed on the upstream when

Re: Draft Contribution Guide

My concern with that is we aren't making clear what constitutes "whenever possible". Could we more concretely define that (eg., "for example, when Github is down")? Were there specific cases that you had in mind? Otherwise, I worry about the ambiguity introduced and the possibility for different pe

Re: Draft Contribution Guide

I didn't see this paragraph before: "Committers should never commit anything without going through a pull request, since that would bypass test coverage and potentially cause the build to fail due to checkstyle, etc. Always go through the pull request, even if you won’t wait for the code review."

Re: Draft Contribution Guide

+1 Regards JB On 03/23/2016 05:30 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: Thanks everyone for commenting! There were no new comments in the last several days, so we'll start moving the doc over to the Beam website. Of course, there's nothing here set in stone -- please reopen the discussion about any particu

Re: Draft Contribution Guide

Thanks everyone for commenting! There were no new comments in the last several days, so we'll start moving the doc over to the Beam website. Of course, there's nothing here set in stone -- please reopen the discussion about any particular point at any time in the future. On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at

Re: Capability matrix question

+1 to considering "metric" / PMetric / etc. On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Amit Sela wrote: > How about "PMetric" ? > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 16:53 Frances Perry wrote: > >> Perhaps I'm unclear on what an “Aggregator” is. I assumed that a line such as the following: PColle