Re: streaming GroupBy + Fold

Thanks, I am checking it out tomorrow morning. On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Martin Neumann wrote: > Hej, > > Sorry it took so long to respond I needed to check if I was actually > allowed to share the code since it uses internal datasets. > > In the appendix of this email

Re: streaming GroupBy + Fold

Hej, Sorry it took so long to respond I needed to check if I was actually allowed to share the code since it uses internal datasets. In the appendix of this email you will find the main class of this job without the supporting classes or the actual dataset. If you want to run it you need to

[jira] [Created] (FLINK-2819) Add Windowed Join/CoGroup Operator Based on Tagged Union

Aljoscha Krettek created FLINK-2819: --- Summary: Add Windowed Join/CoGroup Operator Based on Tagged Union Key: FLINK-2819 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2819 Project: Flink

Re: streaming GroupBy + Fold

Martin, I have looked at your code and you are running a fold in a window, that is a very important distinction - the code paths are separate. Those code paths have been recently touched by Aljoscha if I am not mistaken. I have mocked up a simple example and could not reproduce your problem

Iteration feedback partitioning does not work properly

Hey, This question is mainly targeted towards Aljoscha but maybe someone can help me out here: I think the way feedback partitioning is handled does not work, let me illustrate with a simple example: IterativeStream it = ... (parallelism 1) DataStream mapped = it.map(...) (parallelism 2) //

[jira] [Created] (FLINK-2820) Configuration not passed to JobGraphGenerator

Greg Hogan created FLINK-2820: - Summary: Configuration not passed to JobGraphGenerator Key: FLINK-2820 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2820 Project: Flink Issue Type: Bug

[DISCUSS] Introducing a review process for pull requests

Hi everybody, Along with our efforts to improve the “How to contribute” guide, I would like to start a discussion about a setting up a review process for pull requests. Right now, I feel that our PR review efforts are often a bit unorganized. This leads to situation such as: - PRs which are

Re: Extending and improving our "How to contribute" page

Hi, I opened a PR with the discussed changes [1]. Please review, give feedback, and suggest changes. Cheers, Fabian [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/11 2015-09-28 18:02 GMT+02:00 Fabian Hueske : > @Chiwan, sure. Will do that. Thanks for pointing it out :-) > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Introducing a review process for pull requests

One comment: We should ensure that contributors follow discussions on the dev mailing list. Otherwise, they might miss important discussions regarding their PR (what happened already). Thus, the contributor was waiting for feedback on the PR, while the reviewer(s) waited for the PR to be updated

Re: Extending and improving our "How to contribute" page

I would like to extend the coding guidelines to make new tests (or extending existing once) for fixed bugs mandatory; ie, write a test that fails before the fix, but passes after the fix. Right now, the guideline dictates that **Tests for new features are required** which is not broad enough,

Re: Towards Flink 0.10

Thanks Greg, we have added that to the list of API breaking changes. On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Greg Hogan wrote: > Max, > > Stephan noted that FLINK-2723 is an API breaking change. The CopyableValue > interface has a new method "T copy()". Commit >

Re: Towards Flink 0.10

Max, Stephan noted that FLINK-2723 is an API breaking change. The CopyableValue interface has a new method "T copy()". Commit e727355e42bd0ad7d403aee703aaf33a68a839d2 Greg On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Maximilian Michels wrote: > Hi Flinksters, > > After a lot of

Towards Flink 0.10

Hi Flinksters, After a lot of development effort in the past months, it is about time to move towards the next major release. We decided to move towards 0.10 instead of a milestone release. This release will probably be the last release before 1.0. For 0.10 we most noticeably have the new

Re: Towards Flink 0.10

Yes, FLINK-2785 that's right! Alright, thanks a lot! On 5 October 2015 at 18:31, Fabian Hueske wrote: > Hi Vasia, > > I guess you are referring to FLINK-2785. Should be fine, as there is a PR > already. > I'll add it to the list. > > Would be nice if you could take care of

Re: Towards Flink 0.10

Thanks Max. I extended the list of issues to fix for the release. 2015-10-05 17:10 GMT+02:00 Maximilian Michels : > Thanks Greg, we have added that to the list of API breaking changes. > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Greg Hogan wrote: > > > Max, > > > >

Re: Towards Flink 0.10

Thank you Max for putting the list together and to whomever added FLINK-2561 to the list :) I would also add FLINK-2561 (pending PR #1205). It's a sub-task of FLINK-2561, so maybe it's covered as is. If we go for Gelly graduation, I can take care of FLINK-2786 "Remove Spargel from source code and

Re: Towards Flink 0.10

Hi Vasia, I guess you are referring to FLINK-2785. Should be fine, as there is a PR already. I'll add it to the list. Would be nice if you could take care of FLINK-2786 (remove Spargel). Cheers, Fabian 2015-10-05 18:25 GMT+02:00 Vasiliki Kalavri : > Thank you Max