Amol, I would suggest starting a separate thread for that discussion.
Thanks On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Amol Kekre <a...@datatorrent.com> wrote: > Yes there are two conflicting threads now. The original thread was to open > up a way for contributors to submit code in a dir (contrib?) as long as > license part of taken care of. > > On the thread of removing non-used operators -> How do we know what is > being used? > > Thks, > Amol > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Sandesh Hegde <sand...@datatorrent.com> > wrote: > > > +1 for removing the not-used operators. > > > > So we are creating a process for operator writers who don't want to > > understand the platform, yet wants to contribute? How big is that set? > > If we tell the app-user, here is the code which has not passed all the > > checklist, will they be ready to use that in production? > > > > This thread has 2 conflicting forces, reduce the operators and make it > easy > > to add more operators. > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 3:03 PM Pramod Immaneni <pra...@datatorrent.com> > > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Gaurav Gupta < > gaurav.gopi...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Pramod, > > > > > > > > By that logic I would say let's put all partitionable operators into > > one > > > > folder, non-partitionable operators in another and so on... > > > > > > > > > > Remember the original goal of making it easier for new members to > > > contribute and managing those contributions to maturity. It is not a > > > functional level separation. > > > > > > > > > > When I look at hadoop code I see these annotations being used at > class > > > > level and not at package/folder level. > > > > > > > > > I had a typo in my email, I meant to say "think of this like a > folder..." > > > as an analogy and not literally. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Pramod Immaneni < > > pra...@datatorrent.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Gaurav Gupta < > > > gaurav.gopi...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Can same goal not be achieved by > > > > > > using > org.apache.hadoop.classification.InterfaceStability.Evolving > > / > > > > > > org.apache.hadoop.classification.InterfaceStability.Unstable > > > > annotation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is important to localize the additions in one place so > > that > > > it > > > > > becomes clearer to users about the maturity level of these, easier > > for > > > > > developers to track them towards the path to maturity and also > > > provides a > > > > > clearer directive for committers and contributors on acceptance of > > new > > > > > submissions. Relying on the annotations alone makes them spread all > > > over > > > > > the place and adds an additional layer of difficulty in > > identification > > > > not > > > > > just for users but also for developers who want to find such > > operators > > > > and > > > > > improve them. This of this like a folder level annotation where > > > > everything > > > > > under this folder is unstable or evolving. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:35 PM, David Yan < > da...@datatorrent.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Malhar in its current state, has way too many operators > > that > > > > fall > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > "non-production quality" category. We should make it > > obvious > > > to > > > > > > users > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > which operators are up to par, and which operators are > not, > > > and > > > > > > maybe > > > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > > remove those that are likely not ever used in a real use > > > case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am ambivalent about revisiting older operators and doing > > this > > > > > > > exercise > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > this can cause unnecessary tensions. My original intent is > > for > > > > > > > > > contributions going forward. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO it is important to address this as well. Operators > outside > > > the > > > > > play > > > > > > > > area should be of well known quality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this is important, and I don't anticipate much tension > if > > > we > > > > > > > establish clear criteria. > > > > > > > It's not helpful if we let the old subpar operators stay and > put > > up > > > > the > > > > > > > bars for new operators. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
