Re: Apex runner status and next steps

+1 Good idea and fully agree about the three points. Regards JB ⁣​ On Oct 26, 2016, 19:24, at 19:24, Thomas Weise wrote: >Hi, > >The Apex runner is currently in a feature branch: > >https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/apex-runner > >Focus till here has been on

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

A -1 vote doesn't necessarily mean a veto. For instance it's not really possible to veto a release vote. Anyway, we call it vote or discussion, but I think a formal summary of the different proposed approaches is a good thing. My $0.01 ;) Regards JB ⁣​ On Oct 27, 2016, 06:48, at 06:48,

Re: Why does `Combine.perKey(SerializableFunction)` require same input and output type

Combine.perKey takes a single SerializableFunction which knows how to convert from Iterable to V. It turns out that many runners implement optimizations which allow them to run the combine operation across several machines to parallelize the work and potentially reduce the amount of data they

Why does `Combine.perKey(SerializableFunction)` require same input and output type

Hi all, I'm wondering why `Combine.perKey(SerializableFunction)` requires input and output to be of the same type while `Combine.PerKey` doesn't have this restriction. Thanks, Manu

Re: Podling Report Reminder - November 2016

Hello everyone! Unless anyone disagrees or wants to do it, I am happy to volunteer to draft this podling report for review before we submit it. I can get it done for a review this Friday (US-Pacific) if that works. Cheers! James On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 4:01 PM, wrote:

Podling Report Reminder - November 2016

Dear podling, This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly board report. The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 16 November 2016, 10:30 am PDT. The report for your podling will

Re: GitHub mirroring issue

(Sometimes this happens even when there is not a systemic issue: I have seen github mirroring fail if two things are merged close together, but usually the bot "magically" fixes it on the next commit.) Dan On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Amit Sela wrote: > Thanks! > > On

Re: GitHub mirroring issue

Thanks! On Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 23:32 Suneel Marthi wrote: > We have been seeing Github mirroring issues today on other projects too, > filed an Infra jira - INFRA-12830 > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Amit Sela wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I've

Re: GitHub mirroring issue

We have been seeing Github mirroring issues today on other projects too, filed an Infra jira - INFRA-12830 On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Amit Sela wrote: > Hi all, > > I've merged a PR ~2 hours ago and while the apache remote seems up-to-date, > github didn't nor did

GitHub mirroring issue

Hi all, I've merged a PR ~2 hours ago and while the apache remote seems up-to-date, github didn't nor did the PR or JIRA. The last commit hash is: 6db9424 (9f30b21 merge commit). Hopefully this will update after the next commit but FYI I guess. Thanks, Amit

Re: [DISCUSS] Merging master -> feature branch

+1 For a merge from master to the feature branch that does not require extra changes, RTC does not add value. It actually delays and burns reviewer time (even mechanics need some) that "real" PRs could benefit from. If adjustments are needed, then the regular process kicks in. Thanks, Thomas

Re: build failed with dependency problems

I believe this is JIRA issue BEAM-688 On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:15 AM Manu Zhang wrote: > Thanks, it succeeded after `maven clean`. > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:58 PM Amit Sela wrote: > > I just

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

I also like Distinct since it doesn't make it sound like it modifies any underlying collection. RemoveDuplicates makes it sound like the duplicates are removed, rather than a new PCollection without duplicates being returned. On Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 7:36 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré

Re: Start of release 0.3.0-incubating

The release guide [1] has a section about that. Before doing a release we check whether there are blocker issues or issues that have the to-be-released version as the fix version. If there are any those have to be resolved before going forward with the release. [1]

Re: [DISCUSS] Merging master -> feature branch

I generally agree with Kenneth. While working on the SparkRunnerV2 branch, it was a pain - i avoided frequent merges to avoid trivial PRs, but it cost me with very large and non-trivial merges later. I think that frequent merges for feature-branches should most of the time be trivial (no

Re: build failed with dependency problems

Thanks, it succeeded after `maven clean`. On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:58 PM Amit Sela wrote: I just fetched and pulled latest master and build succeeded, maybe try again ? On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:19 AM Manu Zhang wrote: > Hi All, > > I tried to

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.3.0-incubating, release candidate #1

+1 (binding) Thanks for managing the release, Aljoscha! -Max On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 6:46 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Agree. We already discussed about that on the mailing list. I mentionned this > some weeks ago. > > Regards > JB > > ⁣ > > On Oct 26, 2016, 02:26, at

Re: build failed with dependency problems

I just fetched and pulled latest master and build succeeded, maybe try again ? On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:19 AM Manu Zhang wrote: > Hi All, > > I tried to build latest master but failed with the following dependency > problems. > > [INFO] ---

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

Agree. It was more a transition proposal. Regards JB ⁣​ On Oct 26, 2016, 08:31, at 08:31, Robert Bradshaw wrote: >On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: >> And what about use RemoveDuplicates and create an alias Distinct

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > And what about use RemoveDuplicates and create an alias Distinct ? I'd really like to avoid (long term) aliases--you end up having to document (and maintain) them both, and it adds confusion as to which one to

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

A recap of options for RemoveDuplicates: - Leave the name as is and update the JavaDocs - Rename to Distinct - Rename to MakeDistinct - Rename to Deduplicate On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 8:10 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > OK. No problem. > > Regards > JB > > ⁣​ >

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

OK. No problem. Regards JB ⁣​ On Oct 26, 2016, 07:56, at 07:56, Kenneth Knowles wrote: >To be clear: I am not saying that I think the discussion has concluded. >I >think we should give some more time for different time zone rotations >to >occur. I just meant to say

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

And what about use RemoveDuplicates and create an alias Distinct ? It doesn't break the API and would address both SQL users and more "big data" users. My $0.01 ;) Regards JB ⁣​ On Oct 24, 2016, 22:23, at 22:23, Dan Halperin wrote: >I find "MakeDistinct" more