for a documentation
> change, connector change or work deep in core. Not sure if that can be
> automated, but if moved to a separate page, it could be structured better.
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 8:13 AM 陈梓立 wrote:
>
> >
labels is mirrored to a
> mailing list which is important in the ASF to track decision. This
> shouldn't be hard to figure out, but if labels are not tracked, they cannot
> be the sole solution.
>
> We can of course also do both.
> Have the review checklist posted and tracke
commits)
> one by one (GitHub has next/prev commit button). Then imagine if they were
> squashed with some functional/performance improvement changes.
>
> Piotrek
>
> > On 18 Sep 2018, at 17:12, 陈梓立 wrote:
> >
> > Put some good cases here might be helpful.
> >
&g
somewhat out of the "architectural" aspect, so suggests
implementation-level changes.
4. Addressing those implementation-level comments, the PR gets merged.
I think this is quite a good example how we think our review process should
go.
Best,
tison.
陈梓立 于2018年9月18日周二 下午10:53写道：
> M
w.
> Currently there is a lot of "+1" on pull requests which means "code quality
> is fine", but all other questions are unanswered.
> The contributors then rightfully wonder why this does not get merged.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:26 AM, 陈梓立 wrote:
Hi all interested,
Within the document there is a heated discussion about how the PR
template/review template should be.
Here share my opinion:
1. For the review template, actually we don't need comment a review
template at all. GitHub has a tag system and only committer could add tags,
which we
Hi Stephan,
Thanks for raising this discussion and the previous work! I
strongly support effort to improve the process of contributions and reviews.
As you mentioned above, Flink community responses to contributions a bit
inefficiently, both for latency and quality. In my opinion the most
import
Congratulation Gary!
Best,
tison.
Till Rohrmann 于2018年9月7日周五 下午9:15写道：
> Hi everybody,
>
> On behalf of the PMC I am delighted to announce Gary Yao as a new Flink
> committer!
>
> Gary started contributing to the project in June 2017. He helped with the
> Flip-6 implementation, implemented man
Hi,
also +1.
As vivo said, SavePoint is not compatible.
I have heard from a lot of users just said "my previous program does not
work any more!".
If these utilities provide such migration functions, it would be perfect!
Best,
tison.
vino yang 于2018年8月18日周六 上午11:04写道：
> Hi,
>
> +1, from my sid
Hi Fabian,
+1 for improve tutorials stuff. It's a nice idea that distinguish users by
their goals.
One thing I suggest is that, we could list out the new content designed,
which would make the discuss more clear.
FYI, the current struct is: (from where I stand)
```
> HOME
- Concepts
- Program
I think I find it at
https://github.com/apache/flink/commit/4e616a8362744c15a71e0e57ad68fbb52266c837
Thanks,
tison
陈梓立 于2018年8月2日周四 下午3:14写道：
> Hi devs,
>
> At tag release-1.5.1, I find LOG contains noise like below.
>
> ```
>
Hi devs,
At tag release-1.5.1, I find LOG contains noise like below.
```
13:58:40,752 INFO
org.apache.flink.runtime.dispatcher.StandaloneDispatcher - Job
a18a72a9c335b5cc964f43075418dedc reached globally terminal state FINISHED.
13:58:40,753 INFO org.apache.flink.runtime.minicluster.MiniClu
Hi Kevin,
Welcome!
As a supplement to vino, Flink has a user list u...@flink.apache.org, which
you can subscribe by sending a e-mail to user-subscr...@flink.apache.org
Best,
tison.
vino yang 于2018年7月25日周三 上午10:01写道：
> Hi Kevin,
>
> Welcome, I think you should read the offiicial documentation t
define there some jmh micro
> benchmark to cover your cases that would be nice. It would be a shame if
> someone would accidentally revert/brake your improvements in the future.
>
> Piotrek
>
> > On 18 Jul 2018, at 08:52, 陈梓立 wrote:
> >
> > Hi Till,
> >
> > Than
> thread and specify the setup. Then others could try to verify these numbers
> by running their own benchmark.
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 1:34 AM 陈梓立 wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Recently I pull 3 PRs about performance improvements[1][2]
Hi all,
Recently I pull 3 PRs about performance improvements[1][2][3]. Unit tests
will verify their correctness, and in the real scenario, we have benchmark
report to confirm that they do help for performance.
I wonder what is the formal way to verify a performance improvement. Is it
to give out
Register
17 matches
Mail list logo
