Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

Will do. Feel free to chime in, if I missed anything. On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Jesse Anderson wrote: > @Neelesh Could you write an email to the user list explaining the change > since it is a breaking change? > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:08 PM Neelesh Salian

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

@Neelesh Could you write an email to the user list explaining the change since it is a breaking change? On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:08 PM Neelesh Salian wrote: > Thanks everyone. The PR was merged. > > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Neelesh Salian

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

Thanks everyone. The PR was merged. On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Neelesh Salian wrote: > Thanks everyone for all the inputs. > It's really encouraging for a new contributor, as myself, to get valuable > input and mentoring (like on this thread) and, in turn, help

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

Thanks everyone for all the inputs. It's really encouraging for a new contributor, as myself, to get valuable input and mentoring (like on this thread) and, in turn, help make the community better. On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > You did well

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

You did well ! It's an interesting discussion we have and it's great to have it on the mailing list (better than in Jira or PR comments IMHO). Thanks ! Regards JB ⁣​ On Oct 27, 2016, 20:39, at 20:39, Robert Bradshaw wrote: >+1 to all Dan says. > >I only brought

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

It sounds good to me. So basically you did kind of vote with a proposing solution ;) Regards JB ⁣​ On Oct 27, 2016, 20:04, at 20:04, Dan Halperin wrote: >Folks, I don't think this needs to be a "vote". This is just not that >big a >deal :). It is important to be

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

Sure On Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 8:04 PM Dan Halperin wrote: > Folks, I don't think this needs to be a "vote". This is just not that big a > deal :). It is important to be transparent and have these discussions on > the list, which is why we brought it here from

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

Folks, I don't think this needs to be a "vote". This is just not that big a deal :). It is important to be transparent and have these discussions on the list, which is why we brought it here from GitHub/JIRA, but at the end of the day I hope that a small group of committers and developers can

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

Just to clarify. Davor is right for a code modification change: -1 means a veto. I meant that -1 is not a veto for a release vote. Anyway, even if it's not a formal code, we can have a discussion with "options" a,b and c. Regards JB ⁣​ On Oct 27, 2016, 06:48, at 06:48, Davor Bonaci

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: [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: [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

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

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 that if it does come to a vote, I'd prefer to keep it focused rather than generalizing. On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:51 PM

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

I'd prefer to keep the vote focused on this rename, not a general policy. On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:26 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Yes I would start a formal vote with the three proposals: descriptive > verb, adjective, verbs + adjective. > > Regards > JB > > ⁣​ > > On

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

Yes I would start a formal vote with the three proposals: descriptive verb, adjective, verbs + adjective. Regards JB ⁣​ On Oct 26, 2016, 07:16, at 07:16, Jesse Anderson wrote: >We need to make a decision on this so Neelesh can finish his commit. >Should >we take a vote

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

We need to make a decision on this so Neelesh can finish his commit. Should we take a vote or something? On Tue, Oct 25, 2016, 7:55 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Sounds good to me. > > ⁣​ > > On Oct 24, 2016, 19:11, at 19:11, je...@smokinghand.com wrote: > >I prefer

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

Sounds good to me. ⁣​ On Oct 24, 2016, 19:11, at 19:11, je...@smokinghand.com wrote: >I prefer MakeDistinct if we have to make it a verb.

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > The precedent that we use verbs has many exceptions. We have > ApproximateQuantiles, Values, Keys, WithTimestamps, and I would even > include Sum (at least when I read it). True. > Historical note: the

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

That's how the mainframe programmers I've dealt with refer to it. I agree with Dan. We should either not change the name or change it to Distinct. It's just not worth the effort otherwise. On Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 3:10 PM Eugene Kirpichov wrote: > $0.02: Deduplicate?

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

$0.02: Deduplicate? (lends to extensions like Deduplicate.by(some key extractor function)) On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 1:22 PM Dan Halperin wrote: > I find "MakeDistinct" more confusing. My votes in decreasing preference: > > 1. Keep `RemoveDuplicates` name, ensure that

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

I find "MakeDistinct" more confusing. My votes in decreasing preference: 1. Keep `RemoveDuplicates` name, ensure that important keywords are in the Javadoc. This reduces churn on our users and is honestly pretty dang descriptive. 2. Rename to `Distinct`, which is clear if you're a SQL user and

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

Thanks JB and Jesse. Would something like "MakeDistinct" or "AvoidDuplicate" sound better? I can do the collective changes of the name and the javadoc at one go. Having it documented can be super helpful. On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > It

Re: [DISCUSS] Using Verbs for Transforms

My original thought for this change was that Crunch uses the class name Distinct. SQL also uses the keyword distinct. Maybe the rule should be changed to adjectives or verbs depending on the context. Using a verb to describe this class really doesn't connote what the class does as succinctly as