I saw that the runner was merged but I don’t get why the foler is called ‘runners/jet experimental’ and not simply ‘runners/jet’. Is it because the runner does not pass ValidatesRunner? Or because the contributors are few? I don’t really see any reason behind this suffix. And even if the status is not mature that’s not different from other already merged runners.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:43 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > > Nice! That is *way* more than the PR I was looking for. I just meant that you > could update the website/ directory. It is fine to keep the runner in your > own repository if you want. > > But I think it is great if you want to contribute it to Apache Beam (hence > donate it to the Apache Software Foundation). The benefits include: > low-latency testing, free updates when someone does a refactor. Things to > consider are: subject to ASF / Beam governance, PMC, commiters, subject to > Beam's release cadence (and we might exclude from Beam releases for a little > bit). Typically, we have kept runners on a branch until they are somewhat > stable. I don't feel strongly about this for disjoint codebases that can > easily be excluded from releases. We might want to suffix `-experimental` to > the artifacts for some time. > > I commented on the PR about the necessary i.p. clearance steps. > > Kenn > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 3:59 AM jo...@hazelcast.com <jo...@hazelcast.com> > wrote: >> >> Hi Kenn. >> >> It took me a while to migrate our code to the Beam repo, but I finally have >> been able to create the Pull Request you asked for, this is it: >> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8410 >> >> Looking forward to your feedback! >> >> Best regards, >> Jozsef >> >> On 2019/04/19 20:52:42, Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: >> > The ValidatesRunner tests are the best source we have for knowing the >> > capabilities of a runner. Are there instructions for running the tests? >> > >> > Assuming we can check it out, then just open a PR to the website with the >> > current capabilities and caveats. Since it is a big deal and could use lots >> > of eyes, I would share the PR link on this thread. >> > >> > Kenn >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:53 AM Jozsef Bartok <jo...@hazelcast.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi. We at Hazelcast Jet have been working for a while now to implement a >> > > Java Beam Runner (non-portable) based on Hazelcast Jet ( >> > > https://jet.hazelcast.org/). The process is still ongoing ( >> > > https://github.com/hazelcast/hazelcast-jet-beam-runner), but we are >> > > aiming for a fully functional, reliable Runner which can proudly join the >> > > Capability Matrix. For that purpose I would like to ask what’s your >> > > process >> > > of validating runners? We are already running the @ValidatesRunner tests >> > > and the Nexmark test suite, but beyond that what other steps do we need >> > > to >> > > take to get our Runner to the level it needs to be at? >> > > >> >
