The Pregel-like, vertex-cenric part of Gelly is as stable as it will ever be. I vote for deprecating Spargel in this release, but keep in mind that this is just an opinion :)
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > Okay, I was not aware it is only two missing tests. That is not that big a > deal. > > I am not very attached to the Spargel Stuff, I just want to make sure we do > not deprecate something that works well for something that is still work in > progress. > > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Andra Lungu <lungu.an...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Stephan, > > > > I don't know if I have a saying in this, but I will give it a go :) > > > > The two unsolved issues don't affect the functionality at all. > > Gelly can, at the moment, support anything Spargel could. There is a > guide > > in the documentation explaining how to migrate Spargel code to Gelly. I > > don't see why Spargel should not be deprecated yet. Just because of those > > missing tests? > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Thanks Vasia! > > > > > > We should clearly label Gelly as Work in Progress and at Beta status, > > then > > > it should be okay. This is very fair, it is the first version, people > > > understand that. > > > > > > In that sense, let us not call Spargel deprecated in favor of Gelly > yet, > > > but do that for the next release when Gelly is ready. > > > > > > Stephan > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Vasiliki Kalavri < > > > vasilikikala...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > regarding the 2 gelly issues, I'm sorry but I haven't had time to > work > > on > > > > these. > > > > And most certainly I won't be able to work on these today :S > > > > > > > > In any case, I wouldn't consider them blocker issues, so if you > agree, > > > > please go ahead with the release candidate. > > > > > > > > -Vasia. > > > > > > > > On 5 June 2015 at 11:46, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'll address the remaining documentation issues today. > > > > > > > > > > What about > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > Sync Streaming Java/Scala API > > > > > - Consolidate names across batch/streaming (discussion) > > > > > - Merge static code analysis > > > > > > > > > > and the gelly TODOs > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > FLINK-1522 Add tests for the library methods and examples > > > > > - FLINK-1943 Add Gelly-GSA compiler and translation tests > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They seem both unresolved. > > > > > > > > > > Other than that it seems we are good to go. > > > > > Maybe we can manage to get the first release candidate out today? > > > > > > > > > > I'm uncertain whether we should fork off the "release-0.9" branch > as > > > part > > > > > of the RC creation or whether we should wait a bit with that. > > > > > > > > > > Forking it of would allow us to merge some of the pull requests > > (storm > > > > > compat), but we would need to apply many patches to two branches. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Till, Max, Ufuk, and me have reached consensus that we will > > > > postpone > > > > > > the batch scheduling to 0.10. It is a crucial feature, but we > would > > > not > > > > > > like to have it in a highly pre-mature version in there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What came up a lot is that there are a good set of additions that > > are > > > > > close > > > > > > to completion. We will probably bring up the suggestion of a 0.10 > > > > release > > > > > > very soon after the 0.9 release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ping. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 04 Jun 2015, at 14:11, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Critical issues: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Skipped buffer ( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/Buffer-re-ordering-problem-td6009.html > > > > > > ) > > > > > > > (I'm on it) > > > > > > > > - Execution graph deadlock (FLINK-2133) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm investigating the skipped buffer. I vote to not block the > > > release > > > > > on > > > > > > > this though if I can't reproduce it in the next days. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What about FLINK-2133? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Big open issue: > > > > > > > > - There has been consensus to merge the static code analysis > PR > > > for > > > > > > this > > > > > > > release, which needs some further testing (I'm on it) > > > > > > > > - Batch scheduling. I think Till and Stephan are working on > > this. > > > > Can > > > > > > > you guys give an estimate whether we will be able to have it in > > the > > > > > > release? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Till, Stephan: Will batch scheduling make it into the release? > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
