Will do. Feel free to chime in, if I missed anything.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Jesse Anderson <je...@smokinghand.com>
wrote:
> @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
> >
>
--
Neelesh Srinivas Salian
Customer Operations Engineer
