Hi Roman, Regarding StateFun having a separate mailing list, I'm ok with it going either-way, however when we first contributed the project there was already a discussion about having a separate mailing list for StateFun [1] and the feedback was having StateFun be part of the regular mailing list.
[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@flink.apache.org/msg31464.html On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 12:25 PM Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <tzuli...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I feel that the issues Roman has pointed out so far, is less a problem of > all topics (SQL / PyFlink / StateFun) being on the same list, and more a > problem that we are missing dedicated groups of “user support shepherds” > who are specifically responsible for individual topics on a day-to-day > basis. > > In the distant past, we used to assign shepherds for individual components > in Flink. > Perhaps something similar to that, but specifically for daily user mailing > lists support, is already sufficient to solve the mentioned problems. > So essentially, instead of splitting into “sub-lists”, we should simply > have dedicated “sub-topic maintainers” assigned. > > For example, for myself, I set a filter on my email client to look > specifically for “Stateful Functions / StateFun” mentions, and tag it > appropriately. > This already allows me to concentrate on StateFun questions, without losing > the exposure to other things happening in the wider Flink project. > As far as I can tell, except for some more tricky questions, the turnaround > time for StateFun user questions has been ok so far. > > What do you think? > > Cheers, > Gordon > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 6:56 PM Roman Khachatryan <ro...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Thanks for your replies! > > > > @Konstantin Knauf <kna...@apache.org> > > > Why do you think the quality and speed of answers would improve with > > dedicated lists? > > If there is a question on something that you are not an expert in; then > you > > either have to > > - pull in someone who is more experienced in it (more time on hops, esp. > if > > the pulled in person isn't available) > > - or learn it and answer yourself (more time on learning and still higher > > chance of missing something) > > > > @Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> and @Dawid Wysakowicz > > <dwysakow...@apache.org> > > > I fear that we are creating potential silos where a team doesn't know > > > what is going on in the other teams. > > I think some specialization is unavoidable in a big project like Flink or > > Linux (which also has separate lists). > > And user support ML doesn't seem to me the right tool to deal with it. > > > > @Dawid Wysakowicz <dwysakow...@apache.org> > > > Personally I don't find it problematic. I often find the subjects quite > > > descriptive, they often include tags or mention which API they refer > to. > > Yes, but that only means that the sender would already know the "right" > > list. > > > > @Konstantin Knauf <kna...@apache.org> and @j...@apache.org < > > j...@apache.org> > > > > I agree that there are crosscutting areas; and also a chance of sending a > > message to the wrong topic. > > But splitting doesn't change anything here: if a SQL question for example > > is asked on StateFun ML then > > we still have the options above (plus an option to redirect user to the > > other list). > > > > Regards, > > Roman > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 11:30 AM Dawid Wysakowicz <dwysakow...@apache.org > > > > wrote: > > > > > As others I'd also rather be -1 on splitting (even splitting out the > > > statefun). > > > > > > Personally I don't find it problematic. I often find the subjects quite > > > descriptive, they often include tags or mention which API they refer > to. > > > If they don't I am quite sure having separate sub-lists would not help > > > in those cases anyway. I agree with the others that splitting the list > > > would make the cross communication harder and create knowledge silos. > > > > > > It would also incur more requirements on users which already often find > > > ML counter intuitive (See e.g. the discussion about adding a Flink > slack) > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Dawid > > > > > > On 01/03/2021 11:20, Timo Walther wrote: > > > > I would vote -0 here. > > > > > > > > I fear that we are creating potential silos where a team doesn't know > > > > what is going on in the other teams. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Timo > > > > > > > > > > > > On 01.03.21 10:47, Jark Wu wrote: > > > >> I also have some concerns about splitting python and sql. > > > >> Because I have seen some SQL questions users reported but is related > > to > > > >> deployment or state backend. > > > >> > > > >> Best, > > > >> Jark > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 17:15, Konstantin Knauf < > > konstan...@ververica.com > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi Roman, > > > >>> > > > >>> I slightly +1 for a list dedicated to Statefun users, but -1 for > > > >>> splitting > > > >>> up the rest. I think there are still a lot of crosscutting concerns > > > >>> between > > > >>> Python, DataStream, Table API and SQL where users of another API > can > > > >>> also > > > >>> help out, too. It also requires users to think about which lists to > > > >>> subscribe/write to, instead of simply subscribing to one list. > > > >>> > > > >>> Why do you think the quality and speed of answers would improve > with > > > >>> dedicated lists? > > > >>> > > > >>> Best, > > > >>> > > > >>> Konstantin > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 10:09 AM xiao...@ysstech.com > > > >>> <xiao...@ysstech.com> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hi Roman, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> This is a very good idea. I will look forward to the official > > > >>>> setting up > > > >>>> "sub-lists" as soon as possible and sharing development experience > > and > > > >>>> problems with friends in a certain field. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Regards, > > > >>>> yue > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> xiao...@ysstech.com > > > >>>> > > > >>>> From: Roman Khachatryan > > > >>>> Date: 2021-03-01 16:48 > > > >>>> To: dev > > > >>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Splitting User support mailing list > > > >>>> Hi everyone, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I'd like to propose to extract several "sub-lists" from our user > > > >>>> mailing > > > >>>> list (u...@flink.apache.org). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> For example, > > > >>>> - user-sql@flink.a.o (Python) > > > >>>> - user-statefun@f.a.o (StateFun) > > > >>>> - user-py@f.a.o. (SQL/TableAPI) > > > >>>> And u...@flink.apache.org will remain the main or "default" list. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> That would improve the quality and speed of the answers and allow > > > >>>> developers to concentrate on the relevant topics. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> At the downside, this would lessen the exposure to the various > Flink > > > >>> areas > > > >>>> for lists maintainers. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> What do you think? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Regards, > > > >>>> Roman > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> > > > >>> Konstantin Knauf | Head of Product > > > >>> > > > >>> +49 160 91394525 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Follow us @VervericaData Ververica <https://www.ververica.com/> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> > > > >>> Join Flink Forward <https://flink-forward.org/> - The Apache Flink > > > >>> Conference > > > >>> > > > >>> Stream Processing | Event Driven | Real Time > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> > > > >>> Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> Ververica GmbH > > > >>> Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B > > > >>> Managing Directors: Yip Park Tung Jason, Jinwei (Kevin) Zhang, Karl > > > >>> Anton > > > >>> Wehner > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
