Merged to master :-) Furthermore, updated JIRA with sub tasks for the missing content:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4463 On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> wrote: > Very nice work Ufuk! > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: >> I second Aljoscha :-) >> >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >>> I checked it out and I liked it. :-) >>> >>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 at 19:40 Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> > Initial PR for the layout: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2387 >>> > >>> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> >>> > wrote: >>> > > +1 >>> > > >>> > > On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 at 03:15 Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> +1 :-) >>> > >> >>> > >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> > +1, thanks :-) >>> > >> > >>> > >> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> > >> > >>> > >> > > If there are no objections, I would like to work on this in the >>> next >>> > >> > > days. I would like to only do the restructuring and don't add any >>> > new >>> > >> > > content (e.g. we would have a few empty pages in the beginning). >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> >>> > >> wrote: >>> > >> > > > I added to the "Application Development" Docs the Section >>> "Types, >>> > >> > > > TypeInformation, Serialization". >>> > >> > > > I think that is an important enough aspect to warrant separate >>> > docs. >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Till Rohrmann < >>> > trohrm...@apache.org >>> > >> > >>> > >> > > wrote: >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > >> +1 for the FLIP and making streaming the common case. Very good >>> > >> > proposal >>> > >> > > >> :-) >>> > >> > > >> >>> > >> > > >> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Aljoscha Krettek < >>> > >> > aljos...@apache.org >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > >> wrote: >>> > >> > > >> >>> > >> > > >> > +1 I like it a lot! >>> > >> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 18:43 Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> >>> > >> wrote: >>> > >> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >> > > My take would be to take streaming as the common case and >>> > make >>> > >> > > special >>> > >> > > >> > > sections for batch. >>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > > We can still have a few streaming-only sections (end to end >>> > >> > exactly >>> > >> > > >> once) >>> > >> > > >> > > and a few batch-only sections (optimizer). >>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Ufuk Celebi < >>> u...@apache.org >>> > > >>> > >> > > wrote: >>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > > > I very much like this proposal. This is long overdue. Our >>> > >> > > >> > > > documentation never "broke up" with the old batch focus. >>> > >> That's >>> > >> > > where >>> > >> > > >> > > > the current structure comes from and why people often >>> don't >>> > >> find >>> > >> > > what >>> > >> > > >> > > > they are looking for. We were trying to treat streaming >>> and >>> > >> > batch >>> > >> > > as >>> > >> > > >> > > > equals. We never were "brave" enough to move >>> streaming-only >>> > >> > > concepts >>> > >> > > >> > > > to the top-level. I really like that you are proposing >>> this >>> > >> now >>> > >> > > (for >>> > >> > > >> > > > example for Event time, State Backends etc.). I would >>> love >>> > to >>> > >> > have >>> > >> > > >> > > > this go hand in hand with the 1.2 release. >>> > >> > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > >> > > > What is your opinion about pages affecting both streaming >>> > and >>> > >> > > batch >>> > >> > > >> > > > like "Connectors" or "Failure model"? We could have the >>> > >> landing >>> > >> > > page >>> > >> > > >> > > > cover the general material (e.g. restart strategies) and >>> > then >>> > >> > have >>> > >> > > >> > > > sub-pages for streaming- and batch-specific stuff. Or we >>> > treat >>> > >> > > >> > > > streaming as the common case and have a sub-section for >>> > batch. >>> > >> > We >>> > >> > > >> > > > probably have to decide this case-by-case, but to me it >>> > feels >>> > >> > like >>> > >> > > >> > > > this was the main problem with the old documentation >>> > structure >>> > >> > > >> > > > (content is a different story of course ;)). >>> > >> > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > >> > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Stephan Ewen < >>> > >> se...@apache.org >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > wrote: >>> > >> > > >> > > > > Hi all! >>> > >> > > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > >> > > > > I posted another FLIP - this time about a suggestion to >>> > make >>> > >> > the >>> > >> > > >> > > > > documentation more accessible. >>> > >> > > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > >> > > > > FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation >>> > >> > > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >> >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > >>> > >> >>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP- >>> 3+-+Organization+of+Documentation >>> > >> > > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > >> > > > > The issue of accessibility of information came up >>> > repeatedly >>> > >> > > from >>> > >> > > >> > > users I >>> > >> > > >> > > > > talked to, so this is a suggestion how to improve this. >>> > >> > > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > >> > > > > Greetings, >>> > >> > > >> > > > > Stephan >>> > >> > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >> >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > >>> > >> >>> > >>>
