Okay, then I agree with you! Thanks for clarifying that :-)
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Vasiliki Kalavri <vasilikikala...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you want my personal opinion, I'd say yes. > > I am currently using Gelly for all my projects. For one of them, we have > been running experiments over the last 4 months and we'll be deploying it > in production very soon :) > > Gelly did not change any internals or runtime features; it simply builds on > the DataSet API and the delta iterations and these are stable features. > > The motivation for deprecating Spargel and creating the migration guide was > that we don't want to confuse people by having two Graph APIs. If you feel > uncomfortable with a deprecated API and one in beta, then go ahead and > change that. It's no problem for me. > > Cheers, > -V. > > On 5 June 2015 at 15:51, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Fair enough about including the issues into 0.9.1 > > > > Concerning Gelly, would you recommend people to use that in production > > today? If not, it would be nice to have some non-deprecated code where we > > are confident about that. > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Vasiliki Kalavri < > > vasilikikala...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
