Hi,

let me clarify:

FLINK-1252 is missing a test for PageRank (which might not even be needed,
since the implementation is basically identical to the existing Spargel
one) and a test for MusicProfiles, which is basically using LabelProgation
(and we have a separate test for this).

FLINK-1943 is about implementing a compiler and translation test for the
recently added Gather-Sum-Apply iteration.

IMO, the second would be nice to have, but not a blocker.
I could work on it after my paper deadline, in a week. But since I see
you're eager to have the release today, we could include this is the first
bugfix of 0.9.

-Vasia.


On 5 June 2015 at 13:59, Andra Lungu <lungu.an...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
> > > :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to