[GitHub] incubator-pirk issue #107: [WIP] PIRK-45 Remove dependency on Java serializa...

Github user wraydulany commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/incubator-pirk/pull/107 Fixed the `import...*` and also removed some code garbage that i'd commented out, from an earlier attempt to use jackson, an attempt killed by spark and its ancient version of jackson.

[GitHub] incubator-pirk pull request #107: [WIP] PIRK-45 Remove dependency on Java se...

Github user wraydulany commented on a diff in the pull request: https://github.com/apache/incubator-pirk/pull/107#discussion_r82467602 --- Diff: src/main/java/org/apache/pirk/query/wideskies/QueryDeserializer.java --- @@ -0,0 +1,265 @@ +/* + * Licensed to the Apache

[GitHub] incubator-pirk pull request #107: [WIP] PIRK-45 Remove dependency on Java se...

Github user smarthi commented on a diff in the pull request: https://github.com/apache/incubator-pirk/pull/107#discussion_r82467067 --- Diff: src/main/java/org/apache/pirk/querier/wideskies/QuerierDeserializer.java --- @@ -0,0 +1,117 @@ +/* + * Licensed to the Apache

[GitHub] incubator-pirk pull request #107: [WIP] PIRK-45 Remove dependency on Java se...

GitHub user wraydulany opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/incubator-pirk/pull/107 [WIP] PIRK-45 Remove dependency on Java serialization This is a WIP (do not merge) for adding in JSON serialization. I can't get this WIP to pass the elasticsearch spark streaming tests

Re: Draft for Review - October Podling Report

On 07/10/16 14:33, Joe Witt wrote: > We should avoid the debate about how likely the loss is but we should > also point out how dubious this guidance appears to be in other > communities that graduated. Nah, let's not debate that either. ;-) > > Pirk is a pretty specialized and awesome

Re: Draft for Review - October Podling Report

We should avoid the debate about how likely the loss is but we should also point out how dubious this guidance appears to be in other communities that graduated. Nah, let's not debate that either. ;-) Pirk is a pretty specialized and awesome concept. Whether the core committer base expands or

Re: Draft for Review - October Podling Report

On 07/10/16 12:59, Ellison Anne Williams wrote: > Good points. From a mentor perspective, what would you consider to be > diverse enough community involvement for the project to be self-sustaining? The goal is to ensure that if one or two existing people / companies decide (for whatever reason)

Re: Website source control

On 07/10/16 12:57, Ellison Anne Williams wrote: > It seems to make a lot of sense to keep all of the code for Pirk in the > same repo. I have noticed that some Apache projects keep the website in the > main repo (Accumulo) and others do not. If there is no compelling reason to > move it out, I

Re: Distributed tests take a long time, and that's ok.

The tests were designed to be Responder platform centric. So, if one want to test Pirk on Spark, then they can run the corresponding test suite. The individual tests within each Responder platform scope test test the various cases (and corner cases) of Pirk. One correction to what you wrote about

Re: [VOTE] Apache Pirk 0.2.0-incubating Release

Good point - I will add those instructions to the website so that we can do that from now on. On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 4:49 AM, Tim Ellison wrote: > A minor observation. > > As a final bit of polish on your very smooth release process, you might > consider that when calling

Website source control

It seems a bit odd to me to have the website be a branch in the project code repo, rather than contained in it's own Git repo. What was the thinking behind that? Regards, Tim

Re: Draft for Review - October Podling Report

On 05/10/16 13:50, Ellison Anne Williams wrote: > It appears that podling reports have been moved to quarterly instead of > monthly - looks like we don't have to submit a report until December. > > http://incubator.apache.org/report-groups.txt > > (Thanks to Suneel for the info!) Sure, though I

Re: [VOTE] Apache Pirk 0.2.0-incubating Release

A minor observation. As a final bit of polish on your very smooth release process, you might consider that when calling the result of the vote, you reply directly to your original [VOTE] e-mail, and amend the subject line start with [RESULT]. So it would look like this, with the original call