Re: Feedback on MLlib roadmap process proposal

2017-02-24 Thread Nick Pentreath
FYI I've started going through a few of the top Watched JIRAs and tried to identify those that are obviously stale and can probably be closed, to try to clean things up a bit. On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 at 21:38 Tim Hunter wrote: > As Sean wrote very nicely above, the changes

Re: Feedback on MLlib roadmap process proposal

2017-02-23 Thread Tim Hunter
As Sean wrote very nicely above, the changes made to Spark are decided in an organic fashion based on the interests and motivations of the committers and contributors. The case of deep learning is a good example. There is a lot of interest, and the core algorithms could be implemented without too

Re: Feedback on MLlib roadmap process proposal

2017-02-23 Thread Nick Pentreath
Sorry for being late to the discussion. I think Joseph, Sean and others have covered the issues well. Overall I like the proposed cleaned up roadmap & process (thanks Joseph!). As for the actual critical roadmap items mentioned on SPARK-18813, I think it makes sense and will comment a bit further

Re: Feedback on MLlib roadmap process proposal

2017-01-26 Thread Joseph Bradley
Sean has given a great explanation. A few more comments: Roadmap: I have been creating roadmap JIRAs, but the goal really is to have all committers working on MLlib help to set that roadmap, based on either their knowledge of current maintenance/internal needs of the project or the feedback

Re: Feedback on MLlib roadmap process proposal

2017-01-25 Thread Sean Owen
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:01 AM Ilya Matiach wrote: > My confusion was that the ML 2.2 roadmap critical features ( > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-18813) did not line up with > the top ML/MLLIB JIRAs by Votes >

RE: Feedback on MLlib roadmap process proposal

2017-01-24 Thread Ilya Matiach
017 11:23 AM To: Ilya Matiach <il...@microsoft.com> Cc: dev@spark.apache.org Subject: Re: Feedback on MLlib roadmap process proposal On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:58 PM Ilya Matiach <il...@microsoft.com<mailto:il...@microsoft.com>> wrote: Just a few questions with regards to the MLLIB pr

Re: Feedback on MLlib roadmap process proposal

2017-01-24 Thread Cody Koeninger
Totally agree with most of what Sean said, just wanted to give an alternate take on the "maintainers" thing On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > There is no such list because there's no formal notion of ownership or > access to subsets of the project. Tracking

Re: Feedback on MLlib roadmap process proposal

2017-01-24 Thread Sean Owen
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:58 PM Ilya Matiach wrote: > Just a few questions with regards to the MLLIB process: > > > >1. Is there a list of committers who can/are shepherds and what code >they own? I’ve seen this page: http://spark.apache.org/committers.html >but

RE: Feedback on MLlib roadmap process proposal

2017-01-24 Thread Ilya Matiach
ary 23, 2017 8:04 PM To: Felix Cheung <felixcheun...@hotmail.com> Cc: Mingjie Tang <tangr...@gmail.com>; Seth Hendrickson <seth.hendrickso...@gmail.com>; dev@spark.apache.org Subject: Re: Feedback on MLlib roadmap process proposal Hi Seth, The proposal is geared towards exact

Re: Feedback on MLlib roadmap process proposal

2017-01-23 Thread Joseph Bradley
will see it through with the contributor > to make sure it lands with the target release. > > I'm sure Joseph can explain it better than I do ;) > > > _ > From: Mingjie Tang <tangr...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 10:30 A

Re: Feedback on MLlib roadmap process proposal

2017-01-19 Thread Felix Cheung
uary 19, 2017 10:30 AM Subject: Re: Feedback on MLlib roadmap process proposal To: Seth Hendrickson <seth.hendrickso...@gmail.com<mailto:seth.hendrickso...@gmail.com>> Cc: Joseph Bradley <jos...@databricks.com<mailto:jos...@databricks.com>>, <dev@spark.apache.org<mailto:d

Re: Feedback on MLlib roadmap process proposal

2017-01-19 Thread Mingjie Tang
+1 general abstractions like distributed linear algebra. On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Seth Hendrickson < seth.hendrickso...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the proposal laid out in SPARK-18813 is well done, and I do think > it is going to improve the process going forward. I also really like the

Re: Feedback on MLlib roadmap process proposal

2017-01-19 Thread Seth Hendrickson
I think the proposal laid out in SPARK-18813 is well done, and I do think it is going to improve the process going forward. I also really like the idea of getting the community to vote on JIRAs to give some of them priority - provided that we listen to those votes, of course. The biggest problem I