+1 since it increase maintainability of the code base if it is not really used and thus removed.
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 > > I wanted to make a similar proposal. > > – Ufuk > > > On 08 Jan 2016, at 17:03, Kostas Tzoumas <ktzou...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > for clarification, I was talking about dropping the code, I am unsure > about > > the consequences of dripping code :-) > > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Kostas Tzoumas <ktzou...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> +1 from my side > >> > >> Flink on Tez never got a lot of user traction. It served well as a > >> prototype of "this is possible", but since the core functionality will > be > >> subsumed by making Flink on YARN resource elastic, I don't see any > reason > >> we should have it as part of the Flink codebase. > >> > >> Best, > >> Kostas > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all! > >>> > >>> Currently, Flink has a module to run batch program code on Tez rather > than > >>> Flink's own distributed execution engine. > >>> > >>> I would suggest that we drop this code for the next release (1.0) as > part > >>> of a code consolidation: > >>> > >>> - There seems little in both the Flink and the Tez community to use > and > >>> expand this functionality. > >>> > >>> - The original motivation (better exploit resource elasticity in YARN) > >>> will no longer be valid in the near future. I am re-working the YARN > >>> integration currently to make it more elastic and make it possible to > run > >>> Flink on Mesos. > >>> > >>> - The Flink-on-Tez code is rather POC status. Large scale testing it > and > >>> making adding all missing features will take more effort than making > >>> Flink's own YARN integration resource elastic. > >>> > >>> > >>> Please let me know what you think! > >>> Especially @Kostas, since you wrote the initial POC, I'd be interested > in > >>> your opinion. > >>> > >>> Greetings, > >>> Stephan > >>> > >> > >> > >
