Re: A personal update

Great to have you back, and congrats! On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > Great to hear from you again, and really happy you're sticking around! > > - Robert > > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Ahmet Altay wrote: > > Welcome back! Looking forward to your contributions.

Vendor files in Go SDK

Hi guys, I just noticed that the Go SDK ships vendor files. Many of these files don't have license header. I would like to double check, assuming we distribute these files, that they are Apache license compatible (not a Cat X): https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html Can a Go SDK contrib

Re: A personal update

Great to hear from you again, and really happy you're sticking around! - Robert On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Ahmet Altay wrote: > Welcome back! Looking forward to your contributions. > > Ahmet > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Jesse Anderson > wrote: >> >> Congrats! >> >> >> On Wed, D

Re: A personal update

Welcome back! On 12 December 2017 at 22:47, Ahmet Altay wrote: > Welcome back! Looking forward to your contributions. > > Ahmet > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Jesse Anderson < > je...@bigdatainstitute.io> wrote: > >> Congrats! >> >> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017, 5:54 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>

Re: A personal update

Welcome back! Looking forward to your contributions. Ahmet On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Jesse Anderson wrote: > Congrats! > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017, 5:54 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > >> Hi Davor, >> >> welcome back !! >> >> It's really great to see you back active in the Beam communi

Re: A question regarding BEAM-3280

Hi Ahmet and Robert, Thank you for the reply. Just to clarify, I initially thought this ticket is just to add an example, is it correct? An example from Roberts looks not supported by current SDK https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/sdks/python/apache_beam/transforms/ptransform.py#L280 <

Re: A personal update

Congrats! On Wed, Dec 13, 2017, 5:54 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Davor, > > welcome back !! > > It's really great to see you back active in the Beam community. We really > need you ! > > I'm so happy ! > > Regards > JB > > On 12/13/2017 05:51 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > > My dear friends,

Re: Apache Ignite as a distributed processing back-ends

Hosting integrations in impl more than beam makes a lot of sense IMHO while you can maintain it and follow beam release cycle. It will enable you to evolve faster and optimise/adapt it more accurately. If you dont have the resources, beam would fit better and guarantee it works with each release.

Re: A personal update

Hi Davor, welcome back !! It's really great to see you back active in the Beam community. We really need you ! I'm so happy ! Regards JB On 12/13/2017 05:51 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: My dear friends, As many of you have noticed, I’ve been visibly absent from the project for a little while. D

Re: Report to the Board, December 2017 edition

It looks good to me. Thanks ! Regards JB On 12/13/2017 05:51 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: We are expected to submit a project report to the ASF Board of Directors ahead of its next meeting. The report is due on Wednesday, 12/13. If interested, please take a look at the draft [1], and comment or co

Report to the Board, December 2017 edition

We are expected to submit a project report to the ASF Board of Directors ahead of its next meeting. The report is due on Wednesday, 12/13. If interested, please take a look at the draft [1], and comment or contribute content, as appropriate. I'll submit the report sometime in the next 24 hours. T

A personal update

My dear friends, As many of you have noticed, I’ve been visibly absent from the project for a little while. During this time, a great number of you kept reaching out, and for that I’m deeply humbled and grateful to each and every one of you. I needed some time for personal reflection, which led to

Re: Apache Ignite as a distributed processing back-ends

Having it inside the Apache Beam repo makes sense and I could see it being a good fit as an IO and as a runner. On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > Hi Romain, > > Thanks for the reference. Do you prefer to have the Ignite runner in > Beam’s code base? > > From what I see, the c

Re: Apache Ignite as a distributed processing back-ends

Hi Romain, Thanks for the reference. Do you prefer to have the Ignite runner in Beam’s code base? From what I see, the current runners are hosted there: https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/master/runners As for Ignite community, we would pr

Re: [POLL] Dropping support for Java 7 in Beam 2.3

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding: I didn't mean to suggest to actually use confidence intervals, I added that information just as a curiosity. I agree that we should make the decision based on the explicit % of votes. On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:17 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > -user list for this

Re: [POLL] Dropping support for Java 7 in Beam 2.3

-user list for this FWIW confidence intervals were not mentioned before the poll was launched, but in fact it was pretty explicitly just votes <= 5%. If we require that the 95% confidence interval falls under 5% we either need 2000 respondents (not going to happen) at current proportions or for a

Re: [DISCUSS] [Java] Private shaded dependency uber jars

You can always run tests on post shaded artifacts instead of the compiled classes, it just requires us to change our maven surefire / gradle test configurations but it is true that most IDEs would behave better with a dependency jar unless you delegate all the build/test actions to the build system