@Neelesh Could you write an email to the user list explaining the change
since it is a breaking change?
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:08 PM Neelesh Salian <nsal...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Thanks everyone. The PR was merged.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Neelesh Salian <nsal...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks everyone for all the inputs.
> > It's really encouraging for a new contributor, as myself, to get valuable
> > input and mentoring (like on this thread) and, in turn, help make the
> > community better.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> You did well ! It's an interesting discussion we have and it's great to
> >> have it on the mailing list (better than in Jira or PR comments IMHO).
> >>
> >> Thanks !
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> JB
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Oct 27, 2016, 20:39, at 20:39, Robert Bradshaw
> >> <rober...@google.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >> >+1 to all Dan says.
> >> >
> >> >I only brought this up because it seemed new contributors (yay)
> >> >jumping in and renaming a core transform based on "Something to
> >> >consider" deserved a couple more more eyeballs, but didn't intend for
> >> >it to become a big deal.
> >> >
> >> >On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Dan Halperin
> >> ><dhalp...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> Folks, I don't think this needs to be a "vote". This is just not that
> >> >big a
> >> >> deal :). It is important to be transparent and have these discussions
> >> >on
> >> >> the list, which is why we brought it here from GitHub/JIRA, but at
> >> >the end
> >> >> of the day I hope that a small group of committers and developers can
> >> >> assess "good enough" consensus for these minor issues.
> >> >>
> >> >> Here's my assessment:
> >> >> * We don't really have any rules about naming transforms. "Should be
> >> >a
> >> >> verb" is a sort of guiding principle inherited from the Google Flume
> >> >> project from which Dataflow evolved, but honestly we violate this
> >> >rule for
> >> >> clarity all over the place. ("Values", for example).
> >> >> * The "Big Data" community is significantly more familiar with the
> >> >concept
> >> >> of Distinct -- Jesse, who filed the original JIRA, is a good example
> >> >here.
> >> >> * Finally, nobody feels very strongly. We could argue minor points of
> >> >each
> >> >> solution, but at the end of the day I don't think anyone wants to
> >> >block a
> >> >> change.
> >> >>
> >> >> Let's go with Distinct. It's important to align Beam with the open
> >> >source
> >> >> big data community. (And thanks Jesse, our newest (*tied) committer,
> >> >for
> >> >> pushing us in the right direction!)
> >> >>
> >> >> Jesse, can you please take charge of wrapping up the PR and merging
> >> >it?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks!
> >> >> Dan
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> >> ><j...@nanthrax.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Just to clarify. Davor is right for a code modification change: -1
> >> >means a
> >> >>> veto.
> >> >>> I meant that -1 is not a veto for a release vote.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Anyway, even if it's not a formal code, we can have a discussion
> >> >with
> >> >>> "options" a,b and c.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Regards
> >> >>> JB
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Oct 27, 2016, 06:48, at 06:48, Davor Bonaci
> >> ><da...@google.com.INVALID>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>> >In terms of reaching a decision on any code or design changes,
> >> >>> >including
> >> >>> >this one, I'd suggest going without formal votes. Voting process
> >> >for
> >> >>> >code
> >> >>> >modifications between choices A and B doesn't necessarily end with
> >> >a
> >> >>> >decision A or B -- a single (qualified) -1 vote is a veto and
> >> >cannot be
> >> >>> >overridden [1]. Said differently, the guideline is that code
> >> >changes
> >> >>> >should
> >> >>> >be made by consensus; not by one group outvoting another. I'd like
> >> >to
> >> >>> >avoid
> >> >>> >setting such precedent; we should try to drive consensus, as
> >> >opposed to
> >> >>> >attempting to outvote another part of the community.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >In this particular case, we have had a great discussion. Many
> >> >>> >contributors
> >> >>> >brought different perspectives. Consequently, some opinions have
> >> >been
> >> >>> >likely changed. At this point, someone should summarize the
> >> >arguments,
> >> >>> >try
> >> >>> >to critique them from a neutral standpoint, and suggest a refined
> >> >>> >proposal
> >> >>> >that takes these perspectives into account. If nobody objects in a
> >> >>> >short
> >> >>> >time, we should consider this decided. [ I can certainly help here,
> >> >but
> >> >>> >I'd
> >> >>> >love to see somebody else do it! ]
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Ben Chambers
> >> >>> ><bchamb...@google.com.invalid>
> >> >>> >wrote:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >> I also like Distinct since it doesn't make it sound like it
> >> >modifies
> >> >>> >any
> >> >>> >> underlying collection. RemoveDuplicates makes it sound like the
> >> >>> >duplicates
> >> >>> >> are removed, rather than a new PCollection without duplicates
> >> >being
> >> >>> >> returned.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 7:36 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> >> ><j...@nanthrax.net>
> >> >>> >> wrote:
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> > Agree. It was more a transition proposal.
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> > Regards
> >> >>> >> > JB
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> > On Oct 26, 2016, 08:31, at 08:31, Robert Bradshaw
> >> >>> >> > <rober...@google.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >> >>> >> > >On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> >> >>> >> > ><j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> >> >>> >> > >> And what about use RemoveDuplicates and create an alias
> >> >Distinct
> >> >>> >?
> >> >>> >> > >
> >> >>> >> > >I'd really like to avoid (long term) aliases--you end up
> >> >having to
> >> >>> >> > >document (and maintain) them both, and it adds confusion as to
> >> >>> >which
> >> >>> >> > >one to use (especially if they every diverge), and means
> >> >searching
> >> >>> >for
> >> >>> >> > >one or the other yields half the results.
> >> >>> >> > >
> >> >>> >> > >> It doesn't break the API and would address both SQL users
> >> >and
> >> >>> >more
> >> >>> >> > >"big data" users.
> >> >>> >> > >>
> >> >>> >> > >> My $0.01 ;)
> >> >>> >> > >>
> >> >>> >> > >> Regards
> >> >>> >> > >> JB
> >> >>> >> > >>
> >> >>> >> > >>
> >> >>> >> > >>
> >> >>> >> > >> On Oct 24, 2016, 22:23, at 22:23, Dan Halperin
> >> >>> >> > ><dhalp...@google.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >> >>> >> > >>>I find "MakeDistinct" more confusing. My votes in decreasing
> >> >>> >> > >>>preference:
> >> >>> >> > >>>
> >> >>> >> > >>>1. Keep `RemoveDuplicates` name, ensure that important
> >> >keywords
> >> >>> >are
> >> >>> >> > >in
> >> >>> >> > >>>the
> >> >>> >> > >>>Javadoc. This reduces churn on our users and is honestly
> >> >pretty
> >> >>> >dang
> >> >>> >> > >>> descriptive.
> >> >>> >> > >>>2. Rename to `Distinct`, which is clear if you're a SQL user
> >> >and
> >> >>> >> > >likely
> >> >>> >> > >>>less clear otherwise. This is a backwards-incompatible API
> >> >>> >change, so
> >> >>> >> > >>>we
> >> >>> >> > >>>should do it before we go stable.
> >> >>> >> > >>>
> >> >>> >> > >>>I am not super strong that 1 > 2, but I am very strong that
> >> >>> >> > >"Distinct"
> >> >>> >> > >>>>>>
> >> >>> >> > >>>"MakeDistinct" or and "RemoveDuplicates" >>>
> >> >"AvoidDuplicate".
> >> >>> >> > >>>
> >> >>> >> > >>>Dan
> >> >>> >> > >>>
> >> >>> >> > >>>On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Kenneth Knowles
> >> >>> >> > >>><k...@google.com.invalid>
> >> >>> >> > >>>wrote:
> >> >>> >> > >>>
> >> >>> >> > >>>> The precedent that we use verbs has many exceptions. We
> >> >have
> >> >>> >> > >>>> ApproximateQuantiles, Values, Keys, WithTimestamps, and I
> >> >>> >would
> >> >>> >> > >even
> >> >>> >> > >>>> include Sum (at least when I read it).
> >> >>> >> > >>>>
> >> >>> >> > >>>> Historical note: the predilection towards verbs is from
> >> >the
> >> >>> >Google
> >> >>> >> > >>>Style
> >> >>> >> > >>>> Guide for Java method names
> >> >>> >> > >>>>
> >> >>> >> > >>><https://google.github.io/styleguide/javaguide.html#s5.
> >> >>> >> 2.3-method-names
> >> >>> >> > >,
> >> >>> >> > >>>> which states "Method names are typically verbs or verb
> >> >>> >phrases".
> >> >>> >> > >But
> >> >>> >> > >>>even
> >> >>> >> > >>>> in Google code there are lots of exceptions when it makes
> >> >>> >sense,
> >> >>> >> > >like
> >> >>> >> > >>>> Guava's
> >> >>> >> > >>>> Iterables.any(), Iterables.all(), Iterables.toArray(), the
> >> >>> >entire
> >> >>> >> > >>>> Predicates module, etc. Just an aside; Beam isn't Google
> >> >code.
> >> >>> >I
> >> >>> >> > >>>suggest we
> >> >>> >> > >>>> use our judgment rather than a policy.
> >> >>> >> > >>>>
> >> >>> >> > >>>> I think "Distinct" is one of those exceptions. It is a
> >> >>> >standard
> >> >>> >> > >>>widespread
> >> >>> >> > >>>> name and also reads better as an adjective. I prefer it,
> >> >but
> >> >>> >also
> >> >>> >> > >>>don't
> >> >>> >> > >>>> care strongly enough to change it or to change it back :-)
> >> >>> >> > >>>>
> >> >>> >> > >>>> If we must have a verb, I like it as-is more than
> >> >MakeDistinct
> >> >>> >and
> >> >>> >> > >>>> AvoidDuplicate.
> >> >>> >> > >>>>
> >> >>> >> > >>>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 9:46 AM Jesse Anderson
> >> >>> >> > >>><je...@smokinghand.com>
> >> >>> >> > >>>> wrote:
> >> >>> >> > >>>>
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > My original thought for this change was that Crunch uses
> >> >the
> >> >>> >> > >class
> >> >>> >> > >>>name
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > Distinct. SQL also uses the keyword distinct.
> >> >>> >> > >>>> >
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > Maybe the rule should be changed to adjectives or verbs
> >> >>> >depending
> >> >>> >> > >>>on the
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > context.
> >> >>> >> > >>>> >
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > Using a verb to describe this class really doesn't
> >> >connote
> >> >>> >what
> >> >>> >> > >the
> >> >>> >> > >>>class
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > does as succinctly as the adjective.
> >> >>> >> > >>>> >
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 9:40 AM Neelesh Salian
> >> >>> >> > >>><nsal...@cloudera.com>
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > wrote:
> >> >>> >> > >>>> >
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > > Hello,
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > >
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > > First of all, thank you to Daniel, Robert and Jesse
> >> >for
> >> >>> >their
> >> >>> >> > >>>review on
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > > this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-239
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > >
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > > A point that came up was using verbs explicitly for
> >> >>> >Transforms.
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > > Here is the PR:
> >> >>> >> > >>>https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/pull/1164
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > >
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > > Posting it to help understand if we have a consensus
> >> >for
> >> >>> >it and
> >> >>> >> > >>>if yes,
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > we
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > > could perhaps document it for future changes.
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > >
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > > Thank you.
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > >
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > > --
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > > Neelesh Srinivas Salian
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > > Engineer
> >> >>> >> > >>>> > >
> >> >>> >> > >>>> >
> >> >>> >> > >>>>
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Neelesh Srinivas Salian
> > Customer Operations Engineer
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Neelesh Srinivas Salian
> Customer Operations Engineer
>
