Some very good points IMO, but there is no mention of actually making Mahout
run on something specific. Are we really going for a shell that engine
companies can use to put on top of their engine but doesn’t actually run on
anything until the engine guys do some work? Clearly not true. We seem t
Very good description of benefits.
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Gokhan Capan wrote:
> I want to express my opinions for the vision, too. I tried to capture those
> words from various discussions in the dev-list, and hope that most, of them
> support the common sense of excitement the new Ma
Big +1, very nicely captures what I also think
--sebastian
Am 21.05.2014 14:27 schrieb "Gokhan Capan" :
> I want to express my opinions for the vision, too. I tried to capture those
> words from various discussions in the dev-list, and hope that most, of them
> support the common sense of excitem
I want to express my opinions for the vision, too. I tried to capture those
words from various discussions in the dev-list, and hope that most, of them
support the common sense of excitement the new Mahout arouses
To me, the fundamental benefit of the shift that Mahout is undergoing is a
better se
inline
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Sebastian Schelter wrote:
>
>>
> Let's take the next from our homepage as starting point. What should we
> add/remove/modify?
>
>
>
> The Mahout community decided to move its c
First is there anything we can’t agree on with that statement? I see nothing to
disagree with personally, though I see no need to talk about potential outside
contributions here, but I’ll let that slide.
If this is for the outside world then it needs to clearly answer:
1) If I want to run the _l
On 05/18/2014 09:28 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Sebastian Schelter wrote:
I suggest we start with a specific draft that someone prepares (maybe Ted
as he started the thread)
This is a good strategy, and I am happy to start the discussion, but I
wonder if it migh
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Sebastian Schelter wrote:
> I suggest we start with a specific draft that someone prepares (maybe Ted
> as he started the thread)
This is a good strategy, and I am happy to start the discussion, but I
wonder if it might help build consensus if somebody else sta
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Pat Ferrel wrote:
> I think Ted’s intent was to find a simple consensus statement that
> addresses where the project is going in a general way.
Indeed. And I would emphasize the word consensus.
I am trying to build a bit of consensus here. I really
Not sure why you address this to me. I agree with most of your statements.
I think Ted’s intent was to find a simple consensus statement that addresses
where the project is going in a general way. I look at it as something to
communicate to the outside world. Why? We are rejecting new mapreduce
Not sure why you address this to me. I agree with most of your statements.
I think Ted’s intent was to find a simple consensus statement that addresses
where the project is going in a general way. I look at it as something to
communicate to the outside world. Why? We are rejecting new mapreduce
rel wrote:
> This doesn’t seem to be a vision statement. I was +1 to a simple consensus
> statement.
>
> The vision is up to you.
>
> We have an interactive shell that scales to huge datasets without
> resorting to massive subsampling. One that allows you to deal with the
>
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Pat Ferrel wrote:
> Seems like the vision comes from feature champions. I may not use Mahout
> in the same way you do but I rely on your code. Maybe I serve a different
> user type than you. I don’t see a problem with that, do you?
>
Sounds good to me.
This doesn’t seem to be a vision statement. I was +1 to a simple consensus
statement.
The vision is up to you.
We have an interactive shell that scales to huge datasets without resorting to
massive subsampling. One that allows you to deal with the exact data your black
box algos work on
h the obvious open-source addition that outside contributions are
encouraged.
From: ted.dunn...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 18:23:18 +0200
Subject: consensus statement?
To: dev@mahout.apache.org
I have been involved in side conversations to try to build a bit of unity
among our community a
> On May 6, 2014, at 12:23 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> I have been involved in side conversations to try to build a bit of unity
> among our community and would like to propose this as a statement of what
> we are doing:
>
>
> Apache Mahout is moving immediately to a faster execution model. The
Pat et. al,
The whole problem with original suggested consensus statement is that it
reads as "we are building MLLib for Spark (oh wait, there's already such a
thing)" and then "we are building MLLib for 0xdata" and then perhaps for
something else. Which can't be fa
To be honest, I don't understand the issue here. Let's look at what's
happening to the codebase: in the 3 months since our last release in
February, we had 59 changes [1].
>> Outside contributions are always encouraged.
Out of the 59 changes, 28 came from 18 distinct external contributors,
th
+1
I personally won’t spend a lot of time generalizing right now. Contributors can
help with that if they want or make suggestions.
On May 6, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
I have been involved in side conversations to try to build a bit of unity
among our community and would like to pro
tside contributions are
encouraged.
> From: ted.dunn...@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 18:23:18 +0200
> Subject: consensus statement?
> To: dev@mahout.apache.org
>
> I have been involved in side conversations to try to build a bit of unity
> among our community and would
+1
iPhone'd
> On May 6, 2014, at 12:23, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> I have been involved in side conversations to try to build a bit of unity
> among our community and would like to propose this as a statement of what
> we are doing:
>
>
> Apache Mahout is moving immediately to a faster execution
minor additions.
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Dmitriy Lyubimov wrote:
> I guess it would just be more constructive to just formulate an
> alternative here.
>
> (1) Mahout is moving away from Java/Hadoop MapReduce programming models as
> means of algorithm creation, both for performance and s
I guess it would just be more constructive to just formulate an alternative
here.
(1) Mahout is moving away from Java/Hadoop MapReduce programming models as
means of algorithm creation, both for performance and semantical reasons.
(2) Mahout is moving towards creating a clearer semantical alterna
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> I have been involved in side conversations to try to build a bit of unity
> among our community and would like to propose this as a statement of what
> we are doing:
>
>
> This is secondary, tactical goal. The purpose of what i did has always
b
I have been involved in side conversations to try to build a bit of unity
among our community and would like to propose this as a statement of what
we are doing:
Apache Mahout is moving immediately to a faster execution model. The first
of these is Spark. Outside contributions are always encourag
25 matches
Mail list logo
