> 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
although I maintain two versions of Decision Forests, one with the old api and with the new one, the differences between the two APIs are so important that I can't just keep working on the two versions. Thus all the new stuff is being committed using the new API and as far as I can say it seems to work great. On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Robin Anil <robin.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >> >
