Re: Apache: Big Data North America 2017 conference

What an incredible conference this year. It was nice to meet many of you -- thanks everyone! On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > Just a remainder that the Birds of a Feather sessions begins in 30 minutes > in the Windsor room. > > After the session, we are

Re: Behavior of Top.Largest

I see this was implemented. Do we have a policy/guideline for when a name is "bad enough" to merit renaming (and keeping a duplicate, deprecated member around for a year or more). On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Ben

Re: How can I disable running Python SDK tests when testing my Java change?

I logged BEAM-2335 with some of my findings. Cheers On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Borisa Zivkovic < borisha.zivko...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it should be added. I am compiling a list of useful maven commands > to put there. But it takes time. > > For example, how do I execute only one

Re: How can I disable running Python SDK tests when testing my Java change?

I think it should be added. I am compiling a list of useful maven commands to put there. But it takes time. For example, how do I execute only one test marked as @NeedsRunner? How do I execute one specific test in java io? How to execute one pecific test in any of the runners? How to use

Re: How can I disable running Python SDK tests when testing my Java change?

Should this tip be added to https://beam.apache.org/contribute/testing/ ? Cheers On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Lukasz Cwik wrote: > Developers can use *-pl \!sdks/python* to skip the python module. > > Breaking it up would help developers working outside of Python

Re: How can I disable running Python SDK tests when testing my Java change?

Developers can use *-pl \!sdks/python* to skip the python module. Breaking it up would help developers working outside of Python and would decrease the precommit/postcommit execution times. On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Robert Bradshaw < rober...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > We could