You can create patch then ask for VOTE as needed but with a lot of
work involved I think it would be better to get some kind of agreement
of the proposed solution before continuing.
- Henry
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Sebastian Schelter wrote:
> Hi Ufuk,
>
> It is up to the project where to
Hi Ufuk,
It is up to the project where to vote upfront before working on a code
change or whether to do it afterwards.
--sebastian
2014-09-03 15:55 GMT-07:00 Ufuk Celebi :
> Hey Daniel,
>
> I am sure that Till didn't try to set up the vote towards his desired
> outcome. Actually it should con
Hey Daniel,
I am sure that Till didn't try to set up the vote towards his desired
outcome. Actually it should conform to the Apache Voting Process.
Quoting from http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html:
"Expressing Votes: +1, 0, -1, and Fractions
The voting process in Apache may seem more t
Hey Daniel,
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Daniel Warneke wrote:
> quite frankly, I still don’t understand what concrete problems in Flink we
> are trying to solve with introducing akka, or even worse, reimplementing
> the JobManager and TaskManager in Scala. In my opinion, it is crucial to
>
Hi,
sorry, but I think the way this vote is set up is already biased towards
the author’s desired outcome. Two out of the three possible options
effectively lead to the switch to Scala. Moreover, the -1 option
requires the voter to explain his/her decision, the +1 option does not.
Best regar
+1
2014-09-03 22:39 GMT+02:00 Kostas Tzoumas :
> +1
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Márton Balassi
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Till Rohrmann
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 Sounds good to me.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Robert Metzger
> >
+1
Let's make sure that the rewrite comes with additional documentation about
dev environment setup for new contributors.
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Till Rohrmann wrote:
> In the wake of replacing the current proprietary RPC service with an Akka
> service, we have to rewrite the JobManag
Hi,
quite frankly, I still don’t understand what concrete problems in Flink
we are trying to solve with introducing akka, or even worse,
reimplementing the JobManager and TaskManager in Scala. In my opinion,
it is crucial to clarify that before the vote starts.
First, it is unclear to me why
In the wake of replacing the current proprietary RPC service with an Akka
service, we have to rewrite the JobManager and TaskManager. Akka is
implemented in Scala and offers bindings for Scala as well as Java. Since
the implementation using Scala would probably be neater and less verbose,
we would
+1
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Márton Balassi
wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Till Rohrmann
> wrote:
>
> > +1 Sounds good to me.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Robert Metzger
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > sorry, my previous message was confusing. I s
Should be a separate thread with [VOTE] in the subject line, a clear
description of what we are voting for, and the duration of the vote
(typically 72 hours).
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Till Rohrmann
wrote:
> How do we then start the vote on whether we should implement the JobManager
> w
How do we then start the vote on whether we should implement the JobManager
with Scala or not? Can we just do it in this thread or should it happen in
a separate thread?
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Henry Saputra
wrote:
> Thanks @Ufuk for the response.
>
> Yeah, Akka hides all the low level
+1
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Till Rohrmann wrote:
> +1 Sounds good to me.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Robert Metzger
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > sorry, my previous message was confusing. I suggest to release a new
> Flink
> > version all 3 months.
> > BUT, the 0.7-incubating rel
+1 Sounds good to me.
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Robert Metzger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry, my previous message was confusing. I suggest to release a new Flink
> version all 3 months.
> BUT, the 0.7-incubating release is going to be feature freeze in 3 weeks
> because 0.6-incubating was more a
Thanks @Ufuk for the response.
Yeah, Akka hides all the low level nuts and bolts about the RPC flow
but then it also makes a bit harder to debug issues when communication
fail.
It makes sense to use one RPC framework if we could, and since there
are other plans for Akka in the code to help manage
Hey Till,
I'm not sure what the "right" ASF process is, but I wouldn't mind a vote on
this in order to make sure that you don't do unnecessary work by replacing
the code with Scala.
I for one would be certainly open to it. The only thing that bothers me is
the current state of out-of-the-box IDE
Hi,
sorry, my previous message was confusing. I suggest to release a new Flink
version all 3 months.
BUT, the 0.7-incubating release is going to be feature freeze in 3 weeks
because 0.6-incubating was more about getting the release infra set up and
the apache rename out.
The last release that cont
Nice! :)
Issue [1] and PR [2], respectively.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1086
[2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-flink/pull/111
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:00 AM, Till Rohrmann
wrote:
> That's a very good point Henry. One of the advantages of slf4j is that it
> avoids un
Hey Robert,
+1 to frequent regular frequent major releases (I guess you meant 3 weeks
and not 3 months, right?).
Ufuk
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Robert Metzger wrote:
> Hi,
> I agree with Fabian that the list of features is a lot of work. I would
> prefer to have frequent regular major r
19 matches
Mail list logo
