On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Robin Anil <robin.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 3rd thing: > > I am planning to convert the launcher code to implement ToolRunner. > Anyone > > volunteer to help me with that? > > I had wished to begin standardizing how we write these jobs, yes. > > If you see AbstractJob, you'll see how I've unified my three jobs and > how I'm trying to structure them. It implements ToolRunner so all that > is already taken care of. > > I think some standardization is really useful, to solve problems like > this and others, and I'll offer this as a 'draft' for further work. No > real point in continuing to solve these things individually.
One important question in my mind here is how does this effect 0.20 based jobs and pre 0.20 based jobs. I had written pfpgrowth in pure 0.20 api. and deneche is also maintaining two version it seems. I will check the AbstractJob and see > > 5th The release: > > Fix a date for 0.3 release? We should look to improve quality in this > > release. i.e In-terms of running the parts of the code each of us haven't > > tested (like I have run bayes and fp growth many a time, So, I will focus > on > > running clustering algorithms and try out various options see if there is > > any issue) provide feedback so that the one who wrote it can help tweak > it? > > Maybe, maybe not. There are always 100 things that could be worked on, > and that will never change -- it'll never be 'done'. The question of a > release, at this point, is more like, has enough time elapsed / has > enough progress been made to warrant a new point release? I think we > are at that point now. > > The question is not what big things can we do -- 'big' is for 0.4 or > beyond now -- but what small wins can we get in, or what small changes > are necessary to tie up loose ends to make a roughly coherent release. > In that sense, no, I'm not sure I'd say things like what you describe > should be in for 0.3. I mean we could, but then it's months away, and > isn't that just what we call "0.4"? > > Everyone's had a week or two to move towards 0.3 so I believe it's > time to begin pushing on these issues, closing then / resolving them / > moving to 0.4 by end of week. Then set the wheel in motion first thing > next week, since it'll still be some time before everyone's on board. >
