This discussion has resulted in the following PR:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/10559
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 10:14 PM Bowen Li wrote:
> +1 to drop vendor related docs. Links to vendors’ webpages should be enough
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 08:15 Seth Wiesman wrote:
>
> > @uce Agreed.
+1 to drop vendor related docs. Links to vendors’ webpages should be enough
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 08:15 Seth Wiesman wrote:
> @uce Agreed. The discussion here seems to have died down. Since I assume
> most people following this thread have gone home for the day, I'll leave
> this for one more
@uce Agreed. The discussion here seems to have died down. Since I assume
most people following this thread have gone home for the day, I'll leave
this for one more day and then remove the pages tomorrow.
Seth
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 9:38 AM Ufuk Celebi wrote:
> Answers inline...
>
> On Thu,
Answers inline...
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 6:28 PM Seth Wiesman wrote:
> One option would be to do exactly that, but then I feel like we are
> committing to tracking changes on those systems and I just don't know how
> feasible that is.
>
I don't think that's feasible. It's bound to get out of
If anyone wants to do a drive by PR link to vendor docs, just let them.
Just have the menu set up so it doesn't get too visually busy?
E.g.:
Deployment & Ops -> Cluster Deployment -> 3rd Party Vendors -> [ GCP, AWS,
Azure, Ververica, Oracle Cloud, IBM, Lightbend, Crazy Trevo's House of
Streaming,
@chesnay I'm not sure, however, I don't know what we could do to improve
the situation that wouldn't effectively be copying those vendors docs into
our own.
One option would be to do exactly that, but then I feel like we are
committing to tracking changes on those systems and I just don't know
The bounce rate of these pages is not particularly bad.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:48 PM Trevor Grant
wrote:
> You can infer that by looking at the "bounce rate" eg someone gets to the
> page, looks at it, realizes its trash and clicks "back".
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:46 AM Chesnay
You can infer that by looking at the "bounce rate" eg someone gets to the
page, looks at it, realizes its trash and clicks "back".
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:46 AM Chesnay Schepler wrote:
> Question now is whether the numbers are so low because the docs aren't
> required or because they are so
Question now is whether the numbers are so low because the docs aren't
required or because they are so bad.
On 05/12/2019 14:26, Robert Metzger wrote:
I just checked GA:
All numbers are for the last month, independent of the Flink version:
aws.html: 918 pageviews
mapr_setup.html: 108
Based on that the only "maybe" is AWS, and I just googled it and AWS docs
pretty well own the first page (flink.apache.org shows up 3/4 the way down
on first page behind AWS docs).
I revise my "vote" to +1 to dump the whole thing.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 7:26 AM Robert Metzger wrote:
> I just
I just checked GA:
All numbers are for the last month, independent of the Flink version:
aws.html: 918 pageviews
mapr_setup.html: 108 pageviews
gce_setup.html: 256 pageviews
Some other deployment-related pages for reference:
yarn_setup: 4687
cluster: 4284
kubernetes: 3428
On Thu, Dec 5,
Same as Ufuk (non-binding)
In general, docs pages are great "first commits" to leave out there as
newb-issues.
Also though, worth checking how often people use the page (e.g. GA)
3rd option: add a `.bu` to AWS/GCE pages and open a JIRA ticket to fix them
(and put a readme explaining why they
+1 to drop the MapR page.
For the other two I'm +0. I fully agree that the linked AWS and GCE pages
are in bad shape and don't relate to a component developed by the
community. Do we have any numbers from Google Analytics on how popular
those pages are? If they are somewhat popular, I would
If the community cannot manage to keep the vendor-specific documentation up
to date, then I believe it is better to drop it. Hence +1 for the proposal.
Cheers,
Till
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:12 PM Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> +1
>
> Best,
> Aljoscha
>
> > On 2. Dec 2019, at 18:38, Konstantin Knauf
+1 from my side to drop.
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 6:34 PM Seth Wiesman wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to discuss dropping vendor-specific deployment documentation from
> Flink's official docs. To be clear, I am *NOT* suggesting we drop any of
> the filesystem documentation, but the following three
Hi all,
I'd like to discuss dropping vendor-specific deployment documentation from
Flink's official docs. To be clear, I am *NOT* suggesting we drop any of
the filesystem documentation, but the following three pages.
AWS:
16 matches
Mail list logo
