---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35676/
---
(Updated July 8, 2015, 1:41 a.m.)
Review request for samza.
Repository: samza
Shadi, you are absolutely right. I created a diff (
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36274/) to properly calculate activeMs. Feel
free to leave any comments there. Thanks for pointing this out :)
ᐧ
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Shadi Noghabi <
snogh...@linkedin.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Thanks for y
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36274/
---
Review request for samza.
Repository: samza
Description
---
SAMZA-401: g
Hey Roger,
I couldn't agree more. We spent a bunch of time talking to people and that
is exactly the stuff we heard time and again. What makes it hard, of
course, is that there is some tension between compatibility with what's
there now and making things better for new users.
I also strongly agre
Hi, all,
Is the vote done? We have got 4 binding and 2 un-binding votes for +1 so
far.
Thanks!
-Yi
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Martin Kleppmann
wrote:
> +1 (binding) on RC1. Verified sig, built, tested with hello-samza.
>
> On 2 Jul 2015, at 19:22, Yi Pan wrote:
>
> > Hi, Jakob,
> >
> >
Metamorphosis...nice. :)
This has been a great discussion. As a user of Samza who's recently
integrated it into a relatively large organization, I just want to add
support to a few points already made.
The biggest hurdles to adoption of Samza as it currently exists that I've
experienced are:
1)
Kafka Metamorphasis: Data streams in, cockroaches stream out :-)
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales <
g...@apache.org> wrote:
> Forgot to add. On the naming issues, Kafka Metamorphosis is a clear winner
> :)
>
> --
> Gianmarco
>
> On 7 July 2015 at 13:26, Gianmarco De
Forgot to add. On the naming issues, Kafka Metamorphosis is a clear winner
:)
--
Gianmarco
On 7 July 2015 at 13:26, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> @Martin, thanks for you comments.
> Maybe I'm missing some important point, but I think coupling the releases
> is actually a *good
Hi,
@Martin, thanks for you comments.
Maybe I'm missing some important point, but I think coupling the releases
is actually a *good* thing.
To make an example, would it be better if the MR and HDFS components of
Hadoop had different release schedules?
Actually, keeping the discussion in a single
