Thx
LGTM
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Andrew Palumbo wrote:
> Nope didn't submit yet. Link is at beginning of thread. I just
> copy/pasted this so should be good but might be mangled:. Lmk if a prob
> opening.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q7nOWMOzwgR18mnutvbnwBskn-
> EJMzMCvADWFI4Pe
Nope didn't submit yet. Link is at beginning of thread. I just copy/pasted
this so should be good but might be mangled:. Lmk if a prob opening.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q7nOWMOzwgR18mnutvbnwBskn-EJMzMCvADWFI4Pemk/edit?usp=drivesdk
Where is the link / have you submitted yet?
tg
On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Andrew Palumbo wrote:
> Everybody good with me submitting this report. In next day or so?
>
Everybody good with me submitting this report. In next day or so?
LGTM
-d
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Andrew Palumbo wrote:
> Hello all,
> The Mahout PMC would like to involve the community more in filling out
> board reports. This will hopefully help us to learn some of the needs of
> Mahout devs and users.
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q7nO
Welcome back, thank you.
On Thursday, October 1, 2015, Suneel Marthi wrote:
> Sorry missed it, just got back from India.
> I think its due by Oct 21, but will file the report by end of this week.
>
>
> > On Oct 1, 2015, at 12:06 AM, Andrew Musselman <
> andrew.mussel...@gmail.com > wrote:
> >
>
Sorry missed it, just got back from India.
I think its due by Oct 21, but will file the report by end of this week.
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 12:06 AM, Andrew Musselman
> wrote:
>
> Due tomorrow; Suneel, you need any help?
Awesome
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Suneel Marthi
wrote:
> Yup on it, its due by July 15. With the new Apache Reporter service most of
> the fields are autopopulated.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Andrew Musselman <
> andrew.mussel...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Reminder; Suneel if
Yup on it, its due by July 15. With the new Apache Reporter service most of
the fields are autopopulated.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Andrew Musselman wrote:
> Reminder; Suneel if you want help let us know.
>
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Sebastian Schelter
> wrote:
>
> > One thing that I would like to start now and that I think is consensus,
> > (given that it was in the board report) is to rename the upcoming release
> > to 0.10. We already st
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Sebastian Schelter wrote:
> One thing that I would like to start now and that I think is consensus,
> (given that it was in the board report) is to rename the upcoming release
> to 0.10. We already stated in the board report that we "won't be shipping a
> 1.0 rele
On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 5:12 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov wrote:
On Apr 8, 2014 1:15 PM, "Sebastian Schelter" wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm still letting the current discussion settle in my head. I'll try to
come up with new thoughts in a few days. I think we should first identify
things that a majori
On Apr 8, 2014 1:15 PM, "Sebastian Schelter" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm still letting the current discussion settle in my head. I'll try to
come up with new thoughts in a few days. I think we should first identify
things that a majority can agree on and then walk through the controversary
stuff later.
Hi,
I'm still letting the current discussion settle in my head. I'll try to
come up with new thoughts in a few days. I think we should first
identify things that a majority can agree on and then walk through the
controversary stuff later.
One thing that I would like to start now and that I t
On Apr 7, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Pat Ferrel wrote:
> Mahout needs a reboot. Grant has the right perspective, but I’d take it
> further. His #2 (two efforts) is not and never would be reasonable in
> anything but a huge company.
>
FWIW, that was my view _if_ I were in a company funding it. Furt
On Apr 7, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Pat Ferrel wrote:
> The document does not mention the state of the existing Spark work in the
> snapshot codebase. Shouldn’t this be noted?
It's under the community section.
>
> On Apr 7, 2014, at 5:06 AM, Sebastian Schelter wrote:
>
> I think we should mentio
On Apr 7, 2014 12:30 AM, "Sebastian Schelter" wrote:
>
> I agree that the state of the MR code is something that needs to be
addressed. There have been several attempts to rework/refactor it, but none
of them had a satisfactory result unfortunately.
>
> I'm hearing that there is lack for a coheren
tail for deprecated MR capabilities because
we'll be slow to convert.
-Original Message-
From: Chandler Burgess [mailto:cburg...@icontrolesi.com]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 4:11 PM
To: dev@mahout.apache.org
Subject: RE: Board Report
First, take my opinions with a grain of salt, as I'm sur
ndustry moves on to bigger and better things.
-Original Message-
From: Pat Ferrel [mailto:p...@occamsmachete.com]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 1:03 PM
To: dev@mahout.apache.org
Subject: Re: Board Report
Mahout needs a reboot. Grant has the right perspective, but I'd take it
further. Hi
Actually my vision is very close to that of Julia
http://julialang.org/blog/2012/02/why-we-created-julia/,
except
(1) i don't want to be in business of creating a yet-another language;
(2) and i don't want to be in business of creating a yet-another
distributed computations engine.
On Mon, Apr 7
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Pat Ferrel wrote:
> Right! Even more black box is needed. Mahout is not for scientists, it is
> for app devs, some of which are trying desperately to learn the math. Not
> people coming from R and yearning to do scalable app dev.
>
> I guess I've already said that
Being able to support Black Box users was one of the key points from last
week's talk at Amsterdam. Also being able to support users who are DIY.
On Monday, April 7, 2014 2:09 PM, Pat Ferrel wrote:
Right! Even more black box is needed. Mahout is not for scientists, it is for
app devs, some
Right! Even more black box is needed. Mahout is not for scientists, it is for
app devs, some of which are trying desperately to learn the math. Not people
coming from R and yearning to do scalable app dev.
I guess I’ve already said that the Mahout reboot should be first on Spark and
leave the o
Mahout needs a reboot. Grant has the right perspective, but I’d take it
further. His #2 (two efforts) is not and never would be reasonable in anything
but a huge company.
I have never and would never take a team the size of Mahout (even with some new
commiters) and split a reboot into two part
The document does not mention the state of the existing Spark work in the
snapshot codebase. Shouldn’t this be noted?
On Apr 7, 2014, at 5:06 AM, Sebastian Schelter wrote:
I think we should mention the redesign/rework of the website and the completion
of the move from the old wiki to Apache CM
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Sebastian Schelter wrote:
> done.
>
>
> On 04/07/2014 02:39 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
>> Good point, please update the report (you should have credentials)
>>
>> -Grant
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2014, at 5:06 AM, Sebastian Schelter wrote:
>>
>> I think we should mention
done.
On 04/07/2014 02:39 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Good point, please update the report (you should have credentials)
-Grant
On Apr 7, 2014, at 5:06 AM, Sebastian Schelter wrote:
I think we should mention the redesign/rework of the website and the completion
of the move from the old wiki
Good point, please update the report (you should have credentials)
-Grant
On Apr 7, 2014, at 5:06 AM, Sebastian Schelter wrote:
> I think we should mention the redesign/rework of the website and the
> completion of the move from the old wiki to Apache CMS.
>
> --sebastian
>
> On 04/07/2014 0
"It cannot reasonably argued that usage is low and declining while
simultaneously saying that perpetual support of old code is required."
I assume this was to me (?), but I thought it clear that I favored a
reboot (i.e. dropping existing code) as a viable plan, because of
declining usage of curren
I think we should mention the redesign/rework of the website and the
completion of the move from the old wiki to Apache CMS.
--sebastian
On 04/07/2014 02:04 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Here is my proposed report. For the most part, I think the only right thing to
do vis-a-vis the Board is to
Here is my proposed report. For the most part, I think the only right thing to
do vis-a-vis the Board is to report that we are in the midst of a healthy (yes,
I believe it is, for the most part healthy and normal) discussion on where to
go next.
PMC Members: this is checked into SVN at
https:
To Sean's point, if Mahout were "my company", I would do the following, albeit
pragmatic and not so pleasant thing, assuming, of course, I had the $$$ to do
so:
1. Clean up existing code with a laser focus on a few key areas (Sebastian's
list makes sense) using a part of the team and call it 1.
Sean
Why do you care so much that Mahout not work on a flexible high performance
future? You have stated in prominent interviews left Mahout behind and that it
is at the "end of the road".
Your point has been eloquently made and your nihilism about the future of
Mahout seems to have little t
+1 and agree
I might have a little longer off ramp for the old style. I don't see a strong
need to completely revamp the map-reduce based code. Nor is the legacy stuff
around the preference database worth salvaging.
It cannot reasonably argued that usage is low and declining while
simul
+1 and agree with ssc's suggestion.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 7, 2014, at 3:30 AM, Sebastian Schelter wrote:
>
> I agree that the state of the MR code is something that needs to be
> addressed. There have been several attempts to rework/refactor it, but none
> of them had a satisfactory
No, it's about the opposite. I'm referring to the default, current
state of play here.
The issues for a vendor are demand and supportability. Do people want
to pay for support of X? Can you honestly say you have expertise to
support and influence X over at least a major release cycle (12-18
months
I agree that the state of the MR code is something that needs to be
addressed. There have been several attempts to rework/refactor it, but
none of them had a satisfactory result unfortunately.
I'm hearing that there is lack for a coherent vision for the future of
Mahout. Let me suggest a radic
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Sean Owen wrote:
> OK, here's a straw-man for discussion, albeit extreme:
>
> - Retire Apache Mahout 0.x to the attic. Long live MapReduce. She
> served us well.
> - Move Spark-related DSL to an Apache Spark contrib repo
> - 0xdata / Ted proposes incubation of "Mah
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
> In the context of a board report, I would think it's also important to
> acknowledge this perspective, as it is almost certainly causing the
> project to be removed from a major ecosystem distributor.
>
Sean,
Please be explicit here. It soun
ameworks together) and frankly is lacking in ease of usability to
plug into existing infrastructure.
My 2 cents even though I'm not a committer but am deeply interested in working
with and adding to mahout.
> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 10:16:39 -0500
> Subject: Re: Board Report
>
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Andrew Musselman
> wrote:
> > Seems to me there has been a renewed effort to eat our broccoli, along
> with
> > the other ideas people have been bringing on board.
> >
> > What are you proposing to put in the boar
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Andrew Musselman
wrote:
> Seems to me there has been a renewed effort to eat our broccoli, along with
> the other ideas people have been bringing on board.
>
> What are you proposing to put in the board report?
I have not seen significant activity to unify or updat
> https://github.com/0xdata/h2o
>
>
> Thanks Sri for the announcement! this is a great news. I think it deserves
a separate thread!
It seems contributors have chosen to declare h2o as a dependency. Which i
wholeheartedly support.
Getting back to Grant question. This seems to imply software grant
Thanks for the links.
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Sri wrote:
> Indeed,
> Integration work/prototype in-progress is here (it's not ready for review
> but it's not being done behind closed doors!)
>
> https://github.com/tdunning/h2o-matrix
>
> 100% Open Source Apache v2
> H2O is here - we hav
>
> We have participated more than any organization, and argued for and
> contributed to standardizing, fixing, improving or else retiring
> existing code. It doesn't seem to catch on. I recognize it's always
> more interesting to look past obligations, to a next thing. It's about
> as popular as m
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Sebastian Schelter wrote:
> What is going on is the process of finding the next direction for mahout.
> This process has started only recently, is still going on and involves
> talking to people and projects outside of mahout to find means where
...
> collaboration
Hi Sean,
Answers inline.
On 04/06/2014 11:35 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
I agree it's worth pausing to ask what is going on. Recent tweets and
articles I've seen give the impression that the project is somehow
moving entirely to Spark (or even Stratosphere?), or, entirely to H20.
These are sweeping ch
Could I ask, why does this ever need to be part of the project? it
seems perfect for a separate Github repo, like a 'contrib' repo. I
would have said the same about Spark stuff. I would also vote against
stuff like this in the project if I were voting, and the Spark bits,
just on the grounds that i
I agree it's worth pausing to ask what is going on. Recent tweets and
articles I've seen give the impression that the project is somehow
moving entirely to Spark (or even Stratosphere?), or, entirely to H20.
These are sweeping changes that sound very hard to reconcile.
The reality seems more like:
Indeed,
Integration work/prototype in-progress is here (it's not ready for review but
it's not being done behind closed doors!)
https://github.com/tdunning/h2o-matrix
100% Open Source Apache v2
H2O is here - we have developed H2O on a live master past two years :)
https://github.com/0xdata/h2o
The prototype is open to all from my personal GitHub. Indeed the entirety of
h2o is also open source. To assert otherwise is simply to propagate
misinformation.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 6, 2014, at 5:35, Andrew Musselman wrote:
>
> I agree with this sentiment, that one big drop could
I agree with this sentiment, that one big drop could be more than people
could/would devote time to, and that small proposals/prototypes would be more
digestible.
Also would be easier to steer course as we go.
> On Apr 5, 2014, at 8:30 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov wrote:
>
> PS. I personally don't th
PS. I personally don't think there would be significant hiccups with the
review process. There's a very good chance things are either resolvable or
insignificant enough to be foregone due to "power of do" Apache principle.
However, please keep in mind the costs of commiters' time -- the best way
i
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> To add to Sri's comments:
>
>
> This code is intended for contribution if the
> objections of one committer are over-come by the concrete results of the
> prototype.
>
I would like to comment that there are no concerns against making this
con
To add to Sri's comments:
A prototype implementation of the Mahout Matrix and Vector interfaces with
h2o back-end is in progress outside of Mahout with the intention of using
it as a test-bed for developing implementations of several Mahout
algorithms such as SSVD. This code is intended for contr
Grant,
Spark Biindings issues (done/in-progress) are summarized here
http://mahout.apache.org/users/sparkbindings/home.html.
As it stands, there is 1 platform issue, of which core functionality is
completed/committed, and 5 in-progress at various stages of ETA.
Platform issue broughth completion
Grant,
On 0xdata / H2O front:
We feel very excited at making Apache Mahout the principal platform for
scalable machine learning and are rapidly prototyping an initial
integration with the Matrix API. Ted (apache.org), Cliff Click (
acm.org/0xdata), Anand Avati (Redhat) and Michal Malohava (0xdata)
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:
>
>
74 matches
Mail list logo
