te
> >>>>>>>>> component
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to track development for check- and savepoints.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>
t;>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
>>>>>>>>>> aljos...@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Btw, in Jira, if we clean up our components w
t; > > > >>>>>>> I think maintainer is also fine if we clearly
> specify
> >> > that
> >> > > > they
> >> > > > > > > >> are
> >> > > > > > > >>>> not
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> meant as dictators or gatekeepers of the component
> that
> >> > > they
> >> > > > > are
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> responsible for.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> -Aljoscha
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 at 09:48 Vasiliki Kalavri <
> >> > > > > > > >>>> vasilikikala...@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> we could go for something like "sponsor" or
> "champion"
> >> > :)
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I'm fine with the proposal. Good to see more than 1
> >> > person
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > > >> both
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Gelly
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> and Table API.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cheers,
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> -V.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1 June 2016 at 05:46, Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <
> >> > > > > > tzuli...@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I'd like to be added to the Streaming Connectors
> >> > > component
> >> > > > > > > >>> (already
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> edited
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Wiki) :)
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ah, naming, one of the hardest problems in
> >> programming
> >> > :P
> >> > > > > Some
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> comments:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I agree with Robert that the name "maintainers"
> will
> >> be
> >> > > > > > somewhat
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> misleading
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> regarding the authoritative difference with
> >> committers
> >> > /
> >> > > > > PMCs,
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> especially
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> for future newcomers to the community who don't
> come
> >> > > across
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> original
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> discussion on this thread.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Simone's suggestion of Overseer seems good. The
> name
> >> > > > > naturally
> >> > > > > > > >>>> matches
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> its
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> role -
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> - A group of "Overseers" for components, who
> keeps an
> >> > eye
> >> > > > on
> >> > > > > > > >>> related
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> mail
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> threads, known limitations and issues, JIRAs, open
> >> PRs,
> >> > > > > > > >> requested
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> features,
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and potential new overseers and committers, etc,
> for
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > > >> component
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> (original
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> maintainer role).
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> - A "Shepherd" for individual PRs, assigned from
> the
> >> > > > > overseers
> >> > > > > > > >> of
> >> > > > > > > >>>> the
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> component with the aim to guide the submitting
> >> > > contributor.
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Overseers
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> typically pick up new PRs to shepherd themselves,
> or
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > leading
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> overseer
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> allocates an overseer to shepherd a PR which
> hasn't
> >> > been
> >> > > > > picked
> >> > > > > > > >> up
> >> > > > > > > >>>> yet
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> after
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> a certain period of time.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Or perhaps we can also simply go for "Shepherds"
> for
> >> > > > > components
> >> > > > > > > >>> and
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> "Assigned Shepherd" for individual PRs?
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> --
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> View this message in context:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Structure-the-Flink-Open-Source-Development-tp11598p11932.html
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Sent from the Apache Flink Mailing List archive.
> >> > mailing
> >> > > > list
> >> > > > > > > >>>> archive
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> at
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Nabble.com.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>
think maintainer is also fine if we clearly specify
>> > that
>> > > > they
>> > > > > > > >> are
>> > > > > > > >>>> not
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> meant as dictators or gatekeepers of the component that
>> > > they
>> > > > > are
; > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 at 09:48 Vasiliki Kalavri <
> > > > > > > >>>> vasilikikala...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> we could go for something like "sponsor" or "champion"
> > :)
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I'm fine with the proposal. Good to see more than 1
> > person
> > > > for
> > > > > > > >> both
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Gelly
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> and Table API.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cheers,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> -V.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1 June 2016 at 05:46, Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <
> > > > > > tzuli...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I'd like to be added to the Streaming Connectors
> > > component
> > > > > > > >>> (already
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> edited
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Wiki) :)
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ah, naming, one of the hardest problems in
> programming
> > :P
> > > > > Some
> > > > > > > >>>>>> comments:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I agree with Robert that the name "maintainers" will
> be
> > > > > > somewhat
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> misleading
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> regarding the authoritative difference with
> committers
> > /
> > > > > PMCs,
> > > > > > > >>>>>> especially
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> for future newcomers to the community who don't come
> > > across
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> original
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> discussion on this thread.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Simone's suggestion of Overseer seems good. The name
> > > > > naturally
> > > > > > > >>>> matches
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> its
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> role -
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> - A group of "Overseers" for components, who keeps an
> > eye
> > > > on
> > > > > > > >>> related
> > > > > > > >>>>>> mail
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> threads, known limitations and issues, JIRAs, open
> PRs,
> > > > > > > >> requested
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> features,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and potential new overseers and committers, etc, for
> > the
> > > > > > > >> component
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> (original
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> maintainer role).
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> - A "Shepherd" for individual PRs, assigned from the
> > > > > overseers
> > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> component with the aim to guide the submitting
> > > contributor.
> > > > > > > >>>> Overseers
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> typically pick up new PRs to shepherd themselves, or
> > the
> > > > > > leading
> > > > > > > >>>>>> overseer
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> allocates an overseer to shepherd a PR which hasn't
> > been
> > > > > picked
> > > > > > > >> up
> > > > > > > >>>> yet
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> after
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> a certain period of time.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Or perhaps we can also simply go for "Shepherds" for
> > > > > components
> > > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> "Assigned Shepherd" for individual PRs?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> View this message in context:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Structure-the-Flink-Open-Source-Development-tp11598p11932.html
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Sent from the Apache Flink Mailing List archive.
> > mailing
> > > > list
> > > > > > > >>>> archive
> > > > > > > >>>>>> at
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Nabble.com.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
n 2016 at 09:48 Vasiliki Kalavri <
> > > > > > >>>> vasilikikala...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > >
t; > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> we could go for something like "sponsor" or "champion" :)
> > > > > >>>>>>>> I'm fine with the proposal. Good to see more than 1 person
> > for
> > > > > >> both
> > > > > >>>>
; > > >> both
> > > > >>>>>> Gelly
> > > > >>>>>>>> and Table API.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> cheers,
> > > > >>>>>>>> -V.
> > > > >>>>>>>
u-Li (Gordon) Tai <
> > tzuli...@gmail.com
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> I'd like to be added to the Streaming Connectors component
> > > >>> (already
> > > >>>>>>>> edited
> > > >>>>>>>>> Wiki) :)
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Ah, naming, one of the hardest problems in programming :P
> Some
> > > >>>>>> comments:
> > > >>>>>>>>> I agree with Robert that the name "maintainers" will be
> > somewhat
> > > >>>>>>>> misleading
> > > >>>>>>>>> regarding the authoritative difference with committers /
> PMCs,
> > > >>>>>> especially
> > > >>>>>>>>> for future newcomers to the community who don't come across
> the
> > > >>>>>> original
> > > >>>>>>>>> discussion on this thread.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Simone's suggestion of Overseer seems good. The name
> naturally
> > > >>>> matches
> > > >>>>>>>> its
> > > >>>>>>>>> role -
> > > >>>>>>>>> - A group of "Overseers" for components, who keeps an eye on
> > > >>> related
> > > >>>>>> mail
> > > >>>>>>>>> threads, known limitations and issues, JIRAs, open PRs,
> > > >> requested
> > > >>>>>>>> features,
> > > >>>>>>>>> and potential new overseers and committers, etc, for the
> > > >> component
> > > >>>>>>>>> (original
> > > >>>>>>>>> maintainer role).
> > > >>>>>>>>> - A "Shepherd" for individual PRs, assigned from the
> overseers
> > > >> of
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>> component with the aim to guide the submitting contributor.
> > > >>>> Overseers
> > > >>>>>>>>> typically pick up new PRs to shepherd themselves, or the
> > leading
> > > >>>>>> overseer
> > > >>>>>>>>> allocates an overseer to shepherd a PR which hasn't been
> picked
> > > >> up
> > > >>>> yet
> > > >>>>>>>>> after
> > > >>>>>>>>> a certain period of time.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Or perhaps we can also simply go for "Shepherds" for
> components
> > > >>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>> "Assigned Shepherd" for individual PRs?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>> View this message in context:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Structure-the-Flink-Open-Source-Development-tp11598p11932.html
> > > >>>>>>>>> Sent from the Apache Flink Mailing List archive. mailing list
> > > >>>> archive
> > > >>>>>> at
> > > >>>>>>>>> Nabble.com.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
m
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I'd like to be added to the Streaming Connectors component
> > >>> (already
> > >>>>>>>> edited
>
>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ah, naming, one of the hardest problems in programming :P Some
> >>>>>> comments:
> >>>>>>>>> I agree with Robert that the name "maintainers" will be somewhat
> &
gt;>>>>>>>> I agree with Robert that the name "maintainers" will be somewhat
>>>>>>>> misleading
>>>>>>>>> regarding the authoritative difference with committers / PMCs,
>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>>
community who don't come across the
> > > >> original
> > > >> >>> discussion on this thread.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> Simone's suggestion of Overseer seems good. The name naturally
> > > matches
> > > >> >> its
> > >
Simone's suggestion of Overseer seems good. The name naturally
> > matches
> > >> >> its
> > >> >>> role -
> > >> >>> - A group of "Overseers" for components, who keeps an eye on
> related
> > >> mail
> > >> &
t;>>>
>>>>>> for future newcomers to the community who don't come across the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> original
>>>>>
>>>>>> discussion on this thread.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Simone's suggestion of Overseer seems good. The name naturally
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> matches
>>>
>>>> its
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> role -
>>>>>>>> - A group of "Overseers" for components, who keeps an eye on related
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mail
>>>>>
>>>>>> threads, known limitations and issues, JIRAs, open PRs, requested
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> features,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and potential new overseers and committers, etc, for the component
>>>>>>>> (original
>>>>>>>> maintainer role).
>>>>>>>> - A "Shepherd" for individual PRs, assigned from the overseers of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>> component with the aim to guide the submitting contributor.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Overseers
>>>
>>>> typically pick up new PRs to shepherd themselves, or the leading
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> overseer
>>>>>
>>>>>> allocates an overseer to shepherd a PR which hasn't been picked up
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yet
>>>
>>>> after
>>>>>>>> a certain period of time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or perhaps we can also simply go for "Shepherds" for components and
>>>>>>>> "Assigned Shepherd" for individual PRs?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Structure-the-Flink-Open-Source-Development-tp11598p11932.html
>>>
>>>> Sent from the Apache Flink Mailing List archive. mailing list
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> archive
>>>
>>>> at
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nabble.com.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>
ch hasn't been picked up
yet
after
a certain period of time.
Or perhaps we can also simply go for "Shepherds" for components and
"Assigned Shepherd" for individual PRs?
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Structure-the-Flink-Open-Source-Development-tp11598p11932.html
Sent from the Apache Flink Mailing List archive. mailing list
archive
at
Nabble.com.
gt;> features,
> >> >>> and potential new overseers and committers, etc, for the component
> >> >>> (original
> >> >>> maintainer role).
> >> >>> - A "Shepherd" for individual PRs, assigned from the overseers of
> the
> >> >>> component with the aim to guide the submitting contributor.
> Overseers
> >> >>> typically pick up new PRs to shepherd themselves, or the leading
> >> overseer
> >> >>> allocates an overseer to shepherd a PR which hasn't been picked up
> yet
> >> >>> after
> >> >>> a certain period of time.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Or perhaps we can also simply go for "Shepherds" for components and
> >> >>> "Assigned Shepherd" for individual PRs?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> View this message in context:
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >>
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Structure-the-Flink-Open-Source-Development-tp11598p11932.html
> >> >>> Sent from the Apache Flink Mailing List archive. mailing list
> archive
> >> at
> >> >>> Nabble.com.
> >> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
t; mail
>> >>> threads, known limitations and issues, JIRAs, open PRs, requested
>> >> features,
>> >>> and potential new overseers and committers, etc, for the component
>> >>> (original
>> >>> maintainer role).
>
original
> >>> maintainer role).
> >>> - A "Shepherd" for individual PRs, assigned from the overseers of the
> >>> component with the aim to guide the submitting contributor. Overseers
> >>> typically pick up new PRs to shepherd themselves, or t
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Structure-the-Flink-Open-Source-Development-tp11598p11932.html
Sent from the Apache Flink Mailing List archive. mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
en picked up yet
> > after
> > a certain period of time.
> >
> > Or perhaps we can also simply go for "Shepherds" for components and
> > "Assigned Shepherd" for individual PRs?
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> >
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Structure-the-Flink-Open-Source-Development-tp11598p11932.html
> > Sent from the Apache Flink Mailing List archive. mailing list archive at
> > Nabble.com.
> >
>
ly go for "Shepherds" for components and
> "Assigned Shepherd" for individual PRs?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Structure-the-Flink-Open-Source-Development-tp11598p11932.html
> Sent from the Apache Flink Mailing List archive. mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
Shepherd" for individual PRs?
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Structure-the-Flink-Open-Source-Development-tp11598p11932.html
Sent from the Apache Flink Mailing List archive. mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
Overseer? Supervisor? Warden?
2016-05-31 21:23 GMT+02:00 Robert Metzger :
> Good point. I haven't thought about this name clash.
> However, I wonder whether it is clear from the context whether we are
> talking about pull request and component shepherding.
>
> Are there any other ideas for the
Good point. I haven't thought about this name clash.
However, I wonder whether it is clear from the context whether we are
talking about pull request and component shepherding.
Are there any other ideas for the name? If nobody else has concerns
regarding the "maintainer" name, we can of course kee
so are we discarding the other "shepherd" role then?
On 31.05.2016 19:47, Robert Metzger wrote:
Hi,
to keep this discussion going, I pasted Stephan's Component proposal into
the Wiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Components+and+Shepherds
Also, I suggest to rename the "main
Hi,
to keep this discussion going, I pasted Stephan's Component proposal into
the Wiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Components+and+Shepherds
Also, I suggest to rename the "maintainer" to "shepherd" to reflect that
still the committers and the PMC is in charge and the shepher
Hi!
Thanks for all the comments, and the positive resonance! Looks like so far
all are in favor.
I would next add a section to the Wiki and the "How to Contribute" Guide on
this structure, incorporating the component split of Optimizer and Client.
After that, let's get started with gathering can
+1 to Henry's comment, once this makes it to the wiki/website the wording
needs to make it clear that the governance model is unchanged
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Theodore Vasiloudis <
theodoros.vasilou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like the idea of having maintainers as well, hopefully we can
I like the idea of having maintainers as well, hopefully we can streamline
the reviewing process.
I of course can volunteer for the FlinkML component.
As I've mentioned before I'd love to get one more committer willing to
review PRs in FlinkML; by my last count we were up to ~20 open ML-related
PR
The maintainers concept is good idea to make sure PRs are moved smoothly.
But, we need to make sure that this is not additional hierarchy on top of
Flink PMCs.
This will keep us in spirit of ASF community over code.
Please do add me as cluster management maintainer member.
- Henry
On Tuesday, M
I like the proposal and especially the goal to improve the metadata and
descriptions of JIRA issues.
However, I would like to split Client and Optimizer into separate
components.
I can be a maintainer of the optimizer component (DataSet + SQL are fine as
well).
Cheers, Fabian
2016-05-13 17:03
+1 to better scaling :)
Many Jira tickets are good ideas with no current traction. Some have a pull
request (usually closed), many have comments or discussion. It seems these
old tickets tend to hang around because closing the ticket feels like
rejecting the idea. How do we track requested feature
Sounds like a good idea to me. We could include Wikipedia article as well.
As was thinking about extending the article anyway (no time so far...),
as of Flink 1.x the system is stable in large parts and it might be nice
to have a high level system description on Wikipedia, too.
-Matthias
On 05/
Should we also add a component "Flink website and wiki" (minus the
documentation) with an associated maintainer?
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Timo Walther wrote:
> +1 for from my side too
>
>
>
> On 13.05.2016 06:13, Chiwan Park wrote:
>
>> +1 for this proposal
>>
>
>
>
+1 for from my side too
On 13.05.2016 06:13, Chiwan Park wrote:
+1 for this proposal
Thanks for great suggestion.
+1 for this proposal.
Regards,
Chiwan Park
> On May 13, 2016, at 1:44 AM, Nick Dimiduk wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, this is very close to how HBase attempts to manage the
> community load. We break out components (in Jira), with a list of named
> component maint
For what it's worth, this is very close to how HBase attempts to manage the
community load. We break out components (in Jira), with a list of named
component maintainers. Actually, having components alone has given a Big
Bang for the buck because when properly labeled, it makes it really easy
for p
+1
The ideas seem good and the proposed number of components seems reasonable.
With this, we should also then cleanup the JIRA to make it actually usable.
On Thu, 12 May 2016 at 18:09 Stephan Ewen wrote:
> All maintainer candidates are only proposals so far. No indication of lead
> or anything
All maintainer candidates are only proposals so far. No indication of lead
or anything so far.
Let's first see if we agree on the structure proposed here, and if we take
the components as suggested here or if we refine the list.
Am 12.05.2016 17:45 schrieb "Robert Metzger" :
> tl;dr: +1
>
> I als
tl;dr: +1
I also like the proposal a lot. Our community is growing at a quite fast
pace and we need to have some structure in place to still keep track of
everything going on.
I'm happy to see that the proposal mentions cleaning up our JIRA. This is
something that has been annoying me for quite a
+1 for the initiative. With a better process we will improve the
quality of the Flink development and give us more time to focus.
Could we have another category "Infrastructure"? This would concern
things like CI, nightly deployment of snapshots/documentation, ASF
Infra communication. Robert and m
Hey Stephan!
Thanks to you and the others who started this. I really like the
proposal and I'm happy to see my name on some components.
So, +1.
I'd say let's wait until the end of the week/beginning of next week to
see if there is any disagreement with the propsal in the community
(doesn't look
Yes, Matthias, that was supposed to be you.
Sorry from another guy who frequently has his name misspelled ;-)
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> +1 from my side.
>
> Happy to be the maintainer for Storm-Compatibiltiy (at least I guess
> it's me, even the correct spelling w
Big +1 from my side, I think this will help the community grow and prosper
big time!
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> +1 from my side.
>
> Happy to be the maintainer for Storm-Compatibiltiy (at least I guess
> it's me, even the correct spelling would be with two 't' :P)
+1 from my side.
Happy to be the maintainer for Storm-Compatibiltiy (at least I guess
it's me, even the correct spelling would be with two 't' :P)
-Matthias
On 05/12/2016 12:56 PM, Till Rohrmann wrote:
> +1 for the proposal
> On May 12, 2016 12:13 PM, "Stephan Ewen" wrote:
>
>> Yes, Gabor Geva
+1 for the proposal
On May 12, 2016 12:13 PM, "Stephan Ewen" wrote:
> Yes, Gabor Gevay, that did refer to you!
>
> Sorry for the ambiguity...
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Márton Balassi >
> wrote:
>
> > +1 for the proposal
> > @ggevay: I do think that it refers to you. :)
> >
> > On Thu
Yes, Gabor Gevay, that did refer to you!
Sorry for the ambiguity...
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Márton Balassi
wrote:
> +1 for the proposal
> @ggevay: I do think that it refers to you. :)
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Gábor Gévay wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > There are at least thr
+1 for the proposal
@ggevay: I do think that it refers to you. :)
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Gábor Gévay wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There are at least three Gábors in the Flink community, :) so
> assuming that the Gábor in the list of maintainers of the DataSet API
> is referring to me, I'll be
Hello,
There are at least three Gábors in the Flink community, :) so
assuming that the Gábor in the list of maintainers of the DataSet API
is referring to me, I'll be happy to do it. :)
Best,
Gábor G.
2016-05-10 11:24 GMT+02:00 Stephan Ewen :
> Hi everyone!
>
> We propose to establish some li
Hi everyone!
We propose to establish some lightweight structures in the Flink open
source community and development process,
to help us better handle the increased interest in Flink (mailing list and
pull requests), while not overwhelming the
committers, and giving users and contributors a good ex
51 matches
Mail list logo
