Lucene has a big problem that Mahout has avoided: continuity of stored data.
Mahout has thus far refused to support a permanent data format, which is a
wise move.
There is the "patch aging" problem: if a patch does not get committed, API
drift causes it to stop working. There are some very useful
On 11.10.2011 Lance Norskog wrote:
> The Hadoop people said "we'll change whatever we feel like" and look where
> that led to :)
I think we have two conflicting goals here: On the one hand users who have
Mahout in production need stability - in terms of interfaces, but even more so
in terms of f
The Hadoop people said "we'll change whatever we feel like" and look where
that led to :)
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Isabel Drost wrote:
> On 07.10.2011 Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov wrote:
> > > I support (and supported before) the annotations a
On 07.10.2011 Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov wrote:
> > I support (and supported before) the annotations as maturity tags.
>
> In Lucene, we use @lucene.experimental
+1
> We also should probably looking at trimming back things or moving it to a
> sandbox.
On 07.10.2011 Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Lance Norskog wrote:
> > On that topic: if/when Cloudera adds a Mahout version, it will be much
> > harder to change some basic things.
>
> Why? They know how to contribute patches and how the ASF works. We move
> forward as a co
tober 07, 2011 9:42 AM
> To: dev@mahout.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Board report draft for October
>
>
> On Oct 7, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov wrote:
>
>> I support (and supported before) the annotations as maturity tags.
>
> In Lucene, we use @lucene.experimental
>
e API consistency
across the various sub-projects is valuable.
-Original Message-
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsing...@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 9:42 AM
To: dev@mahout.apache.org
Subject: Re: Board report draft for October
On Oct 7, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Dmitriy Lyu
On Oct 7, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov wrote:
> I support (and supported before) the annotations as maturity tags.
In Lucene, we use @lucene.experimental
We also should probably looking at trimming back things or moving it to a
sandbox. I think Watchmaker is a good first candidate, si
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Dmitriy Lyubimov wrote:
> ...
> AbstractJob as it currently exists is more a Tool than an individual step
> in
> a pipeline, perhaps historically driven by a fact that most Mahout
> pipelines
> are one step generic job agnstic of MR specific parameters passed to th
Much as i will be happy to see Mahout in cdh u2, I also support Grant in a
sense that projects are community driven per asf philosophy. If corporations
want to push something thru, the only way they should be able doing that is
thru their empoyees' individual clout in the community per asf voting.
I support (and supported before) the annotations as maturity tags.
Also command line API seems to be good. Maybe some solver apis could be
standardized in some ways.
AbstractJob as it currently exists is more a Tool than an individual step in
a pipeline, perhaps historically driven by a fact that
On Oct 6, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Lance Norskog wrote:
> On that topic: if/when Cloudera adds a Mahout version, it will be much
> harder to change some basic things.
Why? They know how to contribute patches and how the ASF works. We move
forward as a community, not based on any one company (besides
On 07.10.2011 01:59, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Lance Norskog wrote:
>
>> if/when Cloudera adds a Mahout version,
It's a when not an if :)
> I do think that we need to make an effort here.
I totally agree. Some things we could start with:
I think Mahout is in a spe
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Lance Norskog wrote:
> On that topic: if/when Cloudera adds a Mahout version, it will be much
> harder to change some basic things.
Since Mahout is already in production in a lot of places and already in a
prominent distribution (ours) I don't think that things w
On that topic: if/when Cloudera adds a Mahout version, it will be much
harder to change some basic things. Should there be a concerted effort to
agree and do these? Just a minor housecleaning of problems that are easy to
ignore in the "breakneck add-new-stuff mode".
Examples: Whether to use interf
This looks good, other than the obvious that we need to pick up the pace a bit
and get 0.6 out. I know I have a few issues that I need to finish off.
-Grant
On Oct 4, 2011, at 4:19 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
> It's status report time again. Send me anything you'd like to change or
> include:
>
>
It's status report time again. Send me anything you'd like to change or include:
=== Apache Mahout Status Report: October 2011 ===
ISSUES
There are no issues requiring board attention at this time.
CURRENT ACTIVITY
Activity has been moderate during the past 3 months. There were no
new releas
17 matches
Mail list logo
