ectors
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If nobody disagrees, I'll open a PR for these changes.
> > > > I created a JIRA for this discussion:
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3205
> > > >
> > > >
> >
ges.
> > > I created a JIRA for this discussion:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3205
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:58 PM, fhueske wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > >
> &g
ion:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3205
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:58 PM, fhueske wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Henry Saputra
> > > Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 19:34
> > > To
> >
> >
> > From: Henry Saputra
> > Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 19:34
> > To: dev@flink.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Pulling Streaming out of staging and project restructure
> >
> >
> > +1
> >
> > On Friday, October 2, 2015, Matthias J. Sax w
8 PM, fhueske wrote:
> +1
>
>
> From: Henry Saputra
> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 19:34
> To: dev@flink.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Pulling Streaming out of staging and project restructure
>
>
> +1
>
> On Friday, October 2, 2015, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
>
&g
+1
From: Henry Saputra
Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 19:34
To: dev@flink.apache.org
Subject: Re: Pulling Streaming out of staging and project restructure
+1
On Friday, October 2, 2015, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> It think, rename "flink-storm-compatibility-core" to just "fl
+1
On Friday, October 2, 2015, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> It think, rename "flink-storm-compatibility-core" to just "flink-storm"
> would be the cleanest solution.
>
> So in flink-contrib there would be two modules:
> - flink-storm
> - flink-storm-examples
>
> Please let me know if you have an
+1
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 at 11:37 Márton Balassi wrote:
> @Matthias: +1.
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Stephan Ewen wrote:
>
> > @matthias +1 for that approach
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Matthias J. Sax
> wrote:
> >
> > > It think, rename "flink-storm-compatibility-core" to j
@Matthias: +1.
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Stephan Ewen wrote:
> @matthias +1 for that approach
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
>
> > It think, rename "flink-storm-compatibility-core" to just "flink-storm"
> > would be the cleanest solution.
> >
> > So in flink-
@matthias +1 for that approach
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> It think, rename "flink-storm-compatibility-core" to just "flink-storm"
> would be the cleanest solution.
>
> So in flink-contrib there would be two modules:
> - flink-storm
> - flink-storm-examples
>
>
It think, rename "flink-storm-compatibility-core" to just "flink-storm"
would be the cleanest solution.
So in flink-contrib there would be two modules:
- flink-storm
- flink-storm-examples
Please let me know if you have any objection about it.
-Matthias
On 10/02/2015 10:45 AM, Matthias J. S
Sure. Will do that.
-Matthias
On 10/02/2015 10:35 AM, Stephan Ewen wrote:
> @Matthias: How about getting rid of the storm-compatibility-parent and
> making the core and examples projects directly projects in "contrib"
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Till Rohrmann wrote:
>
>> +1 for the ne
@Matthias: How about getting rid of the storm-compatibility-parent and
making the core and examples projects directly projects in "contrib"
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Till Rohrmann wrote:
> +1 for the new project structure. Getting rid of our code dump is a good
> thing.
>
> On Fri, Oct 2,
+1 for the new project structure. Getting rid of our code dump is a good
thing.
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Maximilian Michels wrote:
> +1 Matthias, let's limit the overhead this has for the module maintainers.
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> > I will commit s
+1 Matthias, let's limit the overhead this has for the module maintainers.
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> I will commit something to flink-storm-compatibility tomorrow that
> contains some internal package restructuring. I think, renaming the
> three modules in this com
I will commit something to flink-storm-compatibility tomorrow that
contains some internal package restructuring. I think, renaming the
three modules in this commit would be a smart move as both changes
result in merge conflicts when rebasing open PRs. Thus we can limit this
pain to a single time. I
+1
I like the idea moving "staging" projects into appropriate modules.
While we are at it, I would like to propose changing "
flink-hadoop-compatibility" to "flink-hadoop". It is in my bucket list
but would be nice if it is part of re-org.
Supporting Hadoop in the connector implicitly means compa
+1 for the new Maven project structure
+1 for removing the flink-testing-utils module
+1 for moving flink-language-binding to flink-python
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> +1 For pulling out and the restructure. Enough good arguments have been
> brought forward and I agre
+1 For pulling out and the restructure. Enough good arguments have been
brought forward and I agree with all of them.
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 at 17:47 Ufuk Celebi wrote:
>
> > On 01 Oct 2015, at 16:48, Robert Metzger wrote:
> >
> > @Chesnay: Nothing prevents projects from getting stuck there. But at
> On 01 Oct 2015, at 16:48, Robert Metzger wrote:
>
> @Chesnay: Nothing prevents projects from getting stuck there. But at least
> we don't have two staging repositories (dist, staging). Also I would not
> say that there has been no graduation out of staging. Yarn was also there
> once, streamin
@Chesnay: Nothing prevents projects from getting stuck there. But at least
we don't have two staging repositories (dist, staging). Also I would not
say that there has been no graduation out of staging. Yarn was also there
once, streaming and gelly are currently leaving it. So I would actually say
i
+1 to Robert and practicality :-)
As I said before, I do not feel strongly about this, I was torn myself.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Chesnay Schepler wrote:
> If we remove flink-staging because projects tend to get stuck there, what
> mechanism prevents the same happening with flink-contri
If we remove flink-staging because projects tend to get stuck there,
what mechanism prevents the same happening with flink-contrib?
On 01.10.2015 15:19, Stephan Ewen wrote:
+1 for Robert's comments.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Robert Metzger wrote:
Big +1 for graduating streaming out of
+1 for Robert's comments.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Robert Metzger wrote:
> Big +1 for graduating streaming out of staging. It is widely used, also in
> production and we are spending a lot of effort into hardening it.
> I also agree with the proposed new maven module structure.
>
> We hav
Big +1 for graduating streaming out of staging. It is widely used, also in
production and we are spending a lot of effort into hardening it.
I also agree with the proposed new maven module structure.
We have to carefully test the reworked structure for the scripts which are
generating the hadoop1
+1
I wanted to suggest that we rename modules to fully accept streaming as
first class, qualifying also "batch" as "batch" (e.g., flink-java -->
flink-dataset-java, flink-streaming --> flink-datastream, etc).
This would break maven dependencies (temporary hell :-) so it's not a
decision to take l
I like it in general. But while we're at it, what is the purpose of the
flink-tests project, or rather which tests belong there instead of the
individual projects?
Where would new projects reside in, that previously would have been put
into flink-staging?
Lastly, I'd like to merge flink-lang
Great to see streaming graduating. :)
I like the outline, both getting rid of staging, having the examples
together and generally flattening the structure are very reasonable to me.
You have listed flink-streaming-examples under flink-streaming-connectors
and left out some less prominent maven mo
Hi all!
We are making good headway with reworking the last parts of the Window API.
After that, the streaming API should be good to be pulled out of staging.
Since we are reorganizing the projects as part of that, I would shift a bit
more to bring things a bit more up to date.
In this restructur
29 matches
Mail list logo
