[ANN] Apache Mahout 0.2 Released

Apache Mahout 0.2 has been released and is now available for public download at http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/lucene/mahout Apache Mahout is a subproject of Apache Lucene with the goal of delivering scalable machine learning algorithm implementations under the Apache license. http

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.2

On Monday 16 November 2009 19:44:38 Ted Dunning wrote: > Congrats. Congratulations from me as well! Isabel -- |\ _,,,---,,_ Web: /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) (fL) IM: signature.asc Description: Thi

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.2

Congrats. This was a rocky one which make the relief of completion all the more sweet. On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > Yep, will do this afternoon, will send the release announcement tomorrow. > > On Nov 16, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > > > That looks like a q

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.2

Yep, will do this afternoon, will send the release announcement tomorrow. On Nov 16, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > That looks like a quorum -- 3 days, +4, no objections. I say push it out. > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: >> +1 from me.

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.2

That looks like a quorum -- 3 days, +4, no objections. I say push it out. On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > +1 from me.

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.2

+1 from me. On Nov 12, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > Please vote on releasing the artifacts at: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemahout-002/org/apache/mahout/ > > KEYS file is in the Mahout root trunk. > > Things to do before voting: > > 1. Download a

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.2

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > > On Nov 15, 2009, at 11:03 PM, Drew Farris wrote: > >> It should be a matter of adding an execution to the top level assembly >> plugin in the release profile to build binary artifacts, but I'm a bit >> rusty with the setting up binary ass

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.2

On Nov 15, 2009, at 11:03 PM, Drew Farris wrote: > It should be a matter of adding an execution to the top level assembly > plugin in the release profile to build binary artifacts, but I'm a bit > rusty with the setting up binary assemblies for multi-module projects. > It is likely that it needs

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.2

Done, I agree this should not be a blocker. +1 again to release. Any other votes? On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote: >  core/pom.xml >  core/src/main/java/overview.html >  core/src/main/java/org/apache/mahout/df/data/DescriptorUtils.java >  core/src/test/java/org/apache/mahout

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.2

ures on all the artifacts. I verified the checksums and signature on mahout-0.2-project.tar.bz2 and a few other artifacts. I trust that the others are also OK. > 2. Try out the tests, examples, etc. Ran mvn install (Maven 2.2.1, Java 1.6.0, Linux) without problems. > 3. Try it out in a

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.2

It should be a matter of adding an execution to the top level assembly plugin in the release profile to build binary artifacts, but I'm a bit rusty with the setting up binary assemblies for multi-module projects. It is likely that it needs a custom assembly descriptor to put everything in its prop

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.2

binary > tarball/zip in the repo anywhere. For example, I unrolled > mahout-0.2-project.tar.gz and there were no jar files in there. > (although I could build from that directory without a problem). > > Are binary releases staged elsewhere? > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.2

For what it's worth I downloaded all of the artifacts and verified their signatures using gpg -- everything checked out. I'm curious about the binary release. I couldn't seem to find a binary tarball/zip in the repo anywhere. For example, I unrolled mahout-0.2-project.tar.gz and th

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.2

That's all but identical to me. Not sure what's up. I use the 64-bit JVM by default, maybe that's it? Don't think you even need to reroll. It's not a code issue, at best a test issue, and really not even that. On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > OK, check it and I'll reroll

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.2

OK, check it and I'll reroll today. Here's mine: mvn --version Apache Maven 2.2.1 (r801777; 2009-08-06 15:16:01-0400) Java version: 1.6.0_15 Java home: /System/Library/Frameworks/JavaVM.framework/Versions/1.6.0/Home Default locale: en_US, platform encoding: MacRoman OS name: "mac os x" version: "

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.2

Mac OS X 10.6.2, Java 6, Maven 2.2.1. The usual. It's consistently reproducible. My 'fix' can't really hurt and I committed it. This should already be something the tests do anyway, so that a difference in the 17th decimal place doesn't fail the test (except in some very special case where it is s

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.2

And which mvn? On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > Hmm, I'm on a Mac and running on the command line. What version of OS X > and what JVM? > > On Nov 12, 2009, at 5:49 PM, Sean Owen wrote: > > > I still see that test failure I mentioned, but only happens on the > > command

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.2

Hmm, I'm on a Mac and running on the command line. What version of OS X and what JVM? On Nov 12, 2009, at 5:49 PM, Sean Owen wrote: > I still see that test failure I mentioned, but only happens on the > command line (and perhaps only on a Mac). It is to do with a double > value being compared f

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.2

I still see that test failure I mentioned, but only happens on the command line (and perhaps only on a Mac). It is to do with a double value being compared for exact equality. I "fixed" it but it's hardly a blocker. Otherwise +1 On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > Please vot

[VOTE] Release 0.2

Please vote on releasing the artifacts at: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemahout-002/org/apache/mahout/ KEYS file is in the Mahout root trunk. Things to do before voting: 1. Download and verify signatures on all the artifacts. 2. Try out the tests, examples, etc. 3.

Re: 0.2 status

OK, I think the java mail thing is resolved. Let me try building the artifacts again. On Nov 12, 2009, at 6:22 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > It all sounds fine to me. > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Isabel Drost wrote: >> >> Adding and revising a little: >>

Re: 0.2 status

It all sounds fine to me. On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Isabel Drost wrote: > > Adding and revising a little: >

Re: 0.2 status

Adding and revising a little: Apache Mahout 0.2 has been released and is now available for public download at http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/lucene/mahout Up to date maven artifacts can be found in the Apache repository at https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases/org

Re: 0.2 status

please use "Decision Forests" instead of "Random Forests" On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Robin Anil wrote: > Please edit/add stuff. > > Robin > > > ====== > > Apache Mahout 0.2 has been released and is now availab

Re: 0.2 status

Please edit/add stuff. Robin == Apache Mahout 0.2 has been released and is now available for public download. Apache Mahout is a subproject of Apache Lucene with the goal of delivering scalable machine learning algorithm implementations under the Apache

0.2 status

Anyone care to writeup a release announcement? Here's Solr's: http://lucene.grantingersoll.com/2009/11/10/apache-solr-1-4-0-offically-released/ I've cleaned up the build quite a bit and am now testing preparing the artifacts w/ the much simpler build (no more installing third party libs, th

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

This is good in a way, I got a lot of little fixes in then, for 0.2. I'm about 50 pages into the book now and have had to revisit and run a lot of code, and it's turned out a lot of tiny rough spots. So, good if that goes in to 0.2 On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrot

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

This is fixed now BTW On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Sean Owen wrote: > I'll double check since I've been making lots of changes recently and > therefore most likely to be related to one of my changes. > > Hadn't we already cut 0.2? I am making lots of changes no

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

On Nov 9, 2009, at 11:51 AM, Sean Owen wrote: I'll double check since I've been making lots of changes recently and therefore most likely to be related to one of my changes. Hadn't we already cut 0.2? I am making lots of changes now assuming 0.2 was tagged already. I can sto

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

I'll double check since I've been making lots of changes recently and therefore most likely to be related to one of my changes. Hadn't we already cut 0.2? I am making lots of changes now assuming 0.2 was tagged already. I can stop that. On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Grant I

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

ou want me to try it? Sure, go for it. On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Sean Owen wrote: OK so I shall commit these unless I hear back, and that more or less band-aids us to proceed with 0.2, yes? On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Sean Owen wrote: OK, I "gpg --clearsign"-e

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

wrote: >>>> >>>> OK so I shall commit these unless I hear back, and that more or less >>>> band-aids us to proceed with 0.2, yes? >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Sean Owen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> OK, I

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

09 at 10:56 AM, Sean Owen wrote: OK so I shall commit these unless I hear back, and that more or less band-aids us to proceed with 0.2, yes? On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Sean Owen wrote: OK, I "gpg --clearsign"-ed all the .jar files in lib and core/ lib, and have all the .asc fil

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

oceed with 0.2, yes? On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Sean Owen wrote: OK, I "gpg --clearsign"-ed all the .jar files in lib and core/lib, and have all the .asc files. Just commit those? And roll back the maven-gpg-plugin to maven-deploy-plugin -- I see the CL you are talking about

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

Committed. Re-roll the artifacts and let's finish up? you want me to try it? On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > OK so I shall commit these unless I hear back, and that more or less > band-aids us to proceed with 0.2, yes? > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:44 PM,

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

he way up >> front. >> >> -Grant >> >> >> On Nov 3, 2009, at 6:02 AM, Sean Owen wrote: >> >>> Yeah OK, then sign by hand? Sigs are important indeed. >>> >>> I'm just weighing this against, again, 2 more emails today about >

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

Sure, will do as soon as I am back in town. On Nov 3, 2009 4:40 PM, "Grant Ingersoll" wrote: Hmm, didn't seem to work. Will try to track down someone w/ Maven knowledge at AC. Random dumb idea: just check in the sigs into lib directory and deploy them. Then, we just need to update the sigs w

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

On Tuesday 03 November 2009 15:45:08 Grant Ingersoll wrote: > I agree, in general, we need to be able to get releases out faster and > more reliable. People also should, especially when it is near release > time, be encouraged to try trunk, as we aren't going to be making > drastic changes at that

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

mportant indeed. I'm just weighing this against, again, 2 more emails today about problems that I fixed ages ago, that people aren't getting since they're downloading 0.1. You guys are also in a great position to promote 0.2 in person. I think it'd be great to get them out ASAP. Is

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

x27;m just weighing this against, again, 2 more emails today about problems that I fixed ages ago, that people aren't getting since they're downloading 0.1. You guys are also in a great position to promote 0.2 in person. I think it'd be great to get them out ASAP. Is there anything at all

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

Yeah OK, then sign by hand? Sigs are important indeed. I'm just weighing this against, again, 2 more emails today about problems that I fixed ages ago, that people aren't getting since they're downloading 0.1. You guys are also in a great position to promote 0.2 in person. I thin

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

On Nov 3, 2009, at 5:47 AM, Sean Owen wrote: What were you referring to in your last email then about legal bits? I am genuinely curious to understand things like that since they are important. Oh, sorry. Was confused by your confusion! The relevant line in the prior email was: "Any and al

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

What were you referring to in your last email then about legal bits? I am genuinely curious to understand things like that since they are important. On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > > On Nov 3, 2009, at 5:39 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > >> Sounds like a way forward indeed. >> Is

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

On Nov 3, 2009, at 5:39 AM, Sean Owen wrote: Sounds like a way forward indeed. Is there some legal implication here, what is it? None that I am aware of.

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

Sounds like a way forward indeed. Is there some legal implication here, what is it? On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > Unfortunately, when it comes to the legal bits, the bar is not low.  It > needs to be done right.  I will likely hand sign them today or tomorrow and > then

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

ctly, we have a release ready to go. As Ted says, the bar for 0.2 is low, Unfortunately, when it comes to the legal bits, the bar is not low. It needs to be done right. I will likely hand sign them today or tomorrow and then reopen the JIRA issue. -Grant

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

ready to go. As Ted says, the bar for 0.2 is low, and, if the only issue is MAHOUT-114 again, I strongly favor releasing it now. Otherwise I think we're left unclear who will fix what, when, and we can't have the release just be an unknown. On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Grant Ingers

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

On Nov 2, 2009, at 2:25 PM, Sean Owen wrote: I would, if I weren't 5000 miles away! It's of course going to be a good chance to promote and socialize Mahout. Since it looks like we're, what, actually done with the 0.2 release? would be a real shame if you couldn't point

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

On Monday 02 November 2009 23:22:18 Jake Mannix wrote: > Quick roll-call: who's already in Oakland or are planning to be there this > week for ApacheCon? Arrived this afternoon. > In particular: > > * ) how many of us will be at Lucene MeetUp tuesday night? > > - Jake Mannix > -

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

+epsilon I haven't had time to look at the artifact, but I think the inspection burden should be a (little) bit lower at this point in Mahout's life. On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Sean Owen wrote: > > Is there anything I can help on that front? the artifact looks good. > Can I take it forward

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

I would, if I weren't 5000 miles away! It's of course going to be a good chance to promote and socialize Mahout. Since it looks like we're, what, actually done with the 0.2 release? would be a real shame if you couldn't point the interested at a shiny new 0.2 release to

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

Any other thoughts on getting together? I've met Grant and I see Ted every so often, but I haven't met any of the rest of you. Quick roll-call: who's already in Oakland or are planning to be there this week for ApacheCon? In particular: * ) how many of us will be at Lucene MeetUp tuesday nigh

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

On Oct 31, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Jake Mannix wrote: Speaking of which, I didn't see a "Mahout meetup" anywhere - are we planning on having an informal one sometime? Tuesday is the Lucene MeetUp, and Thurs is Hadoop, we could go out for drinks or something after one of those two, or Friday night?

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 10:36:29AM -0700, Jake Mannix wrote: > Speaking of which, I didn't see a "Mahout meetup" anywhere - are we planning > on having an informal one sometime? Tuesday is the Lucene MeetUp, and Thurs > is Hadoop, we could go out for drinks or something after one of those two, o

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

Speaking of which, I didn't see a "Mahout meetup" anywhere - are we planning on having an informal one sometime? Tuesday is the Lucene MeetUp, and Thurs is Hadoop, we could go out for drinks or something after one of those two, or Friday night? Any interest? -jake On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 7:34

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

On Friday 30 October 2009 22:16:59 Grant Ingersoll wrote: > Hopefully, some of us Mahouts can carve out some time at ApacheCon to > work. I will arrive Monday afternoon and stay until the following Sunday morning - I would guess that there should be some time in between to work on the release. I

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

Let me try to get to the signatures, then I will call a full vote. Hopefully, some of us Mahouts can carve out some time at ApacheCon to work. On Oct 30, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Sean Owen wrote: Update on this -- actually, I was building mahout-core only and that is what fails. Building the whol

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

Update on this -- actually, I was building mahout-core only and that is what fails. Building the whole thing works. Is that about right? I imagine so, even if it seems like core should build by itself. (Or else it seems the failure I saw is avoidable) I don't get a build failure, wonder what the n

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:03:51 +0100 Isabel Drost wrote: > On Wed Sean Owen wrote: > > > Ran into this -- > > Currently when trying to build one of the tests fails for me. Sorry - forgot to mention the failing test in my last mail: (org.apache.mahout.clustering.kmeans.TestKmeansClustering) Tim

Re: Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

that -- Isabel you might know more > about this. That file should contain licensing information for all artifacts that we depend on through maven that have no description through apache deployed resources. However I do see it when unpacking the tar.gz file - it is located under "mahout-0.2

Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

Ran into this -- [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}] [ERROR] Error loading supplemental data models: Could not find resource 'supplemental-models.xml'. org.codehaus.plexus.resource.loader.ResourceNotFoundException: Could not find resource 'supplemental-models.xml'. I know we so

Re: Small issues before 0.2

Right now it's a for loop on i, but, the for loop also declares an apparent index variable called j, which is not the index. A for loop ought to be used when the index variable begins life at the start of the loop, and of course the index variable declared in the for syntax ought be the actual ind

Re: Small issues before 0.2

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Sean Owen wrote: > Going through the code one more time before starting release for 0.2 > and I have noticed some possible issues -- or else I miss something. > > > FPGrowth:258 : is this for loop really supposed to declare one > variable but up

Small issues before 0.2

Going through the code one more time before starting release for 0.2 and I have noticed some possible issues -- or else I miss something. FPGrowth:258 : is this for loop really supposed to declare one variable but update another? this could be correct but reads as confusing LuceneIterable

[jira] Closed: (MAHOUT-188) Cleanup of Bayes/CBayes for 0.2

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-188?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Robin Anil closed MAHOUT-188. - > Cleanup of Bayes/CBayes for 0.2 > --- > > Key

[jira] Resolved: (MAHOUT-188) Cleanup of Bayes/CBayes for 0.2

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-188?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Robin Anil resolved MAHOUT-188. --- Resolution: Fixed Committed > Cleanup of Bayes/CBayes for

[jira] Updated: (MAHOUT-188) Cleanup of Bayes/CBayes for 0.2

expected due to the smoothing parameter > Cleanup of Bayes/CBayes for 0.2 > --- > > Key: MAHOUT-188 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-188 > Project: Mahout > Issue Type: Imp

[jira] Updated: (MAHOUT-188) Cleanup of Bayes/CBayes for 0.2

twenty newsgroups > Cleanup of Bayes/CBayes for 0.2 > --- > > Key: MAHOUT-188 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-188 > Project: Mahout > Issue Type: Improvement >

[jira] Commented: (MAHOUT-188) Cleanup of Bayes/CBayes for 0.2

mins > Cleanup of Bayes/CBayes for 0.2 > --- > > Key: MAHOUT-188 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-188 > Project: Mahout > Issue Type: Improvement >Affects Versions: 0.2 >

[jira] Commented: (MAHOUT-188) Cleanup of Bayes/CBayes for 0.2

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-188?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12767527#action_12767527 ] Sean Owen commented on MAHOUT-188: -- You really mean this for 0.2? I think we're

[jira] Created: (MAHOUT-188) Cleanup of Bayes/CBayes for 0.2

Cleanup of Bayes/CBayes for 0.2 --- Key: MAHOUT-188 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-188 Project: Mahout Issue Type: Improvement Affects Versions: 0.2 Reporter: Robin Anil

Re: 0.2

On Oct 19, 2009, at 12:14 PM, Sean Owen wrote: Almost there. MAHOUT-114 is OK as far as I can tell but need to verify, during the actual release, it does push out signatures. That leaves... On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Sean Owen wrote: MAHOUT-163 Grant Grant you wanted to work on this

Re: 0.2

Almost there. MAHOUT-114 is OK as far as I can tell but need to verify, during the actual release, it does push out signatures. That leaves... On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Sean Owen wrote: > MAHOUT-163 Grant Grant you wanted to work on this? looking close or want to push it out? > MAHOUT-1

Re: Where is CHANGES.txt, and what are your banner changes for 0.2?

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:23:52 -0400 Grant Ingersoll wrote: > We haven't been keeping a CHANGES, as we're just relying on JIRA's > ability to generate a list of what is in a version. When using mvn site site:deploy to generate a project html-report, you can generate a changes report as well. It

Re: Where is CHANGES.txt, and what are your banner changes for 0.2?

We haven't been keeping a CHANGES, as we're just relying on JIRA's ability to generate a list of what is in a version. On Oct 16, 2009, at 11:34 AM, Sean Owen wrote: I'm updating documentation for 0.2 -- nota bene, time to reflect code changes in any docs you wrote!

Where is CHANGES.txt, and what are your banner changes for 0.2?

I'm updating documentation for 0.2 -- nota bene, time to reflect code changes in any docs you wrote! Where is CHANGES.txt mentioned in the release doc? Also, any key features in 0.2 you guys want mentioned, in the news item?

Re: 0.2

I'm targeting Monday to begin releasing 0.2. The remaining issues are MAHOUT-114 which I just followed up on, and the following, which largely look like they are ready to submit? MAHOUT-163 Grant MAHOUT-171 Isabel MAHOUT-186 Robin MAHOUT-148 Robin MAHOUT-157 Robin MAHOUT-170 Robin I think y

Re: 0.2

http://cwiki.apache.org/MAHOUT/how-to-release.html On Oct 16, 2009, at 1:04 AM, Sean Owen wrote: I suppose I have volunteered for the release. What does it entail, making the release? I don't knowledge of this. ... or MAHOUT-114 or what it means to sign these jars? If info is available I can

Re: 0.2

I suppose I have volunteered for the release. What does it entail, making the release? I don't knowledge of this. ... or MAHOUT-114 or what it means to sign these jars? If info is available I can try to figure these out. On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > OK.  The Sparse

Re: 0.2

2 PM, Jeff Eastman wrote: I'd vote to delay 165 for 0.3 but do it in trunk asap after 0.2 so folks can get their hands on it. Sean Owen wrote: It still sounds somewhat significant to me. Either it's rushed or takes a while and both seem negative. +1 This is why I think it is vital

Re: 0.2

I'd vote to delay 165 for 0.3 but do it in trunk asap after 0.2 so folks can get their hands on it. Sean Owen wrote: It still sounds somewhat significant to me. Either it's rushed or takes a while and both seem negative. +1 This is why I think it is vital, at least, to put a s

Re: 0.2

ed's patch (since monkeyed with my you and myself) has the other implementation of Vector, but testing showed it's slower? This patch also had a significant refactoring of the Vector hierarchy so it's not just "a new class". I'm all for getting this in as soon as we

Re: 0.2

It still sounds somewhat significant to me. Either it's rushed or takes a while and both seem negative. I think it is vital, at least, to put a schedule on this, or else we are basically saying 0.2 is to not be released indefinitely, and that's no good. Last time we said we'

Re: 0.2

OUT-114 Release Process Needs to sign published dependencies such as Hadoop, etc. Open06/Apr/09 Not clear on status here, mark as 0.3? This is a blocker for 0.2 and thus must be completed. That being said, I think Hadoop is now publishing to the Maven repo, so we may be abl

Re: 0.2

limited time, I say don't kill yourself to work on this. It's going to be hard to get it done in a weekend. >>        MAHOUT-114      Release Process Needs to sign published >> dependencies such >> as Hadoop, etc.          Open    06/Apr/09 >> >> Not cle

Re: 0.2

On Oct 15, 2009, at 7:21 AM, Sean Owen wrote: Here's what is marked 0.2 plus suggested actions. I am basically suggesting the things that are 'pretty ready' be submitted and published -- if they're 85% done, definitely good enough for an 0.2 release, and worth getting t

Re: 0.2

Here's what is marked 0.2 plus suggested actions. I am basically suggesting the things that are 'pretty ready' be submitted and published -- if they're 85% done, definitely good enough for an 0.2 release, and worth getting them play-tested. (Or else, decide they need another mo

Re: 0.2

On Oct 12, 2009, at 8:52 PM, Jake Mannix wrote: On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: On Oct 12, 2009, at 6:18 PM, Jake Mannix wrote: Yeah, I'm suggesting that any discussion about Colt/cMath/etc be for 0.3, not now. The changes in M-165 don't require any library chan

Re: 0.2

I'm inclined towards Sean's perspective. Making the kinds of significant changes to the vector implementation that 165 entails strike me as non-trivial and likely to delay 0.2 significantly. I vote to not include it in this point release so that the functionality which is ready to

Re: 0.2

jake >> >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Sean Owen wrote: >> >> I don't have a strong view on Colt vs anything else. The only thing >>> that would concern me here would be to let this block 0.2, if it's not >>> even fully clear what the chan

Re: 0.2

s it doesn't perform. -jake On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Sean Owen wrote: I don't have a strong view on Colt vs anything else. The only thing that would concern me here would be to let this block 0.2, if it's not even fully clear what the change will be, or implemented or test

Re: 0.2

ong view on Colt vs anything else. The only thing > that would concern me here would be to let this block 0.2, if it's not > even fully clear what the change will be, or implemented or tested. > This is months off at this rate? Without a clear picture that this is > getting wrapp

Re: 0.2

I don't have a strong view on Colt vs anything else. The only thing that would concern me here would be to let this block 0.2, if it's not even fully clear what the change will be, or implemented or tested. This is months off at this rate? Without a clear picture that this is getting wra

Re: 0.2

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > I think 165 needs to be in this release, it is a pretty big performance issue. I'm leaning towards the Colt stuff at the moment. Perhaps in 0.3, we can refocus on > how we want to attack the matrix stuff. Didn't Ted say that he thought Co

Re: 0.2

MAHOUT-165 could go either 0.2 or 0.3, yes? (ie, if it's not in 0.2, then maybe it will be obviated by a) and b) above) -jake On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Sean Owen wrote: I am ready too. Same question, what is left that must block 0.2 and what is the ETA looking like? On Oct 1

Re: 0.2

abels In light of this, MAHOUT-165 could go either 0.2 or 0.3, yes? (ie, if it's not in 0.2, then maybe it will be obviated by a) and b) above) -jake On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > I am ready too. Same question, what is left that must block 0.2 and what is >

Re: 0.2

I am ready too. Same question, what is left that must block 0.2 and what is the ETA looking like? On Oct 12, 2009 6:07 PM, "Robin Anil" wrote: Everything looks good from my side. I will work on the launcher and tidying up Bayes classifier, the next couple of days. Any idea on a targe

Re: 0.2

it. > > > > > > Wouldn't it be good, if we could group major launch points(main) of > > various(atleast the stable ones) algorithms in to a shell script? I > > don't think much work is needed for a bare bones one and could make > > it to 0.2? >

Re: 0.2

ood, if we could group major launch points(main) of > various(atleast the stable ones) algorithms in to a shell script? I > don't think much work is needed for a bare bones one and could make > it to 0.2? If you do so, please also update the Getting-started documentation (+ the pages on

Re: 0.2

lgorithms in to a shell script? I don't think much work is needed for a bare bones one and could make it to 0.2? mahout classify -algorithm bayes [OPTIONS] mahout cluster -algorithm canopy [OPTIONS] mahout fpm -algorithm pfpgrowth [OPTIONS] mahout taste -algorithm slopeone [OPTIONS]

  1   2   >