+1
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Stephan Ewen wrote:
> +1
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Ufuk Celebi wrote:
>
> >
> > > On 25 Jan 2016, at 11:39, Maximilian Michels wrote:
> > >
> > > I won't have the time to finish the refactoring. Also, it will be
> > > pretty painful with all the
+1
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Ufuk Celebi wrote:
>
> > On 25 Jan 2016, at 11:39, Maximilian Michels wrote:
> >
> > I won't have the time to finish the refactoring. Also, it will be
> > pretty painful with all the large streaming pull requests being merged
> > at the moment. If there are
> On 25 Jan 2016, at 11:39, Maximilian Michels wrote:
>
> I won't have the time to finish the refactoring. Also, it will be
> pretty painful with all the large streaming pull requests being merged
> at the moment. If there are no objections, I would like to merge the
> Scala suffix changes with
I won't have the time to finish the refactoring. Also, it will be
pretty painful with all the large streaming pull requests being merged
at the moment. If there are no objections, I would like to merge the
Scala suffix changes with "flink-streaming-java" being Scala
dependent. It will improve the e
+1 for a big notice once we merge this.
I would like to have a suffix-free "flink-streaming-java". However,
I'm having a hard time to refactor the streaming-java code to get rid
of Scala. The streaming API depends on "flink-clients" and
"flink-runtime" which both inherently depend on Scala. Unfort
> On 21 Jan 2016, at 17:51, Maximilian Michels wrote:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2940
>
> There is now a pending pull request: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1529
>
> As I was working on the changes, I discovered we have some more
> modules which have a Scala depende
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2940
There is now a pending pull request: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1529
As I was working on the changes, I discovered we have some more
modules which have a Scala dependency which could be avoided. Namely
these are "flink-java8", and "flink-
+1 for that.
2015-11-02 20:52 GMT+01:00 Stephan Ewen :
> +1 for Max' suggestion to fix that for 1.0 (next release).
>
> Hot fixing of this thing so short before a release is a bit risky in my
> opinion. It is easy to make errors (overlooking something, error not
> visible because of cached older
+1 for Max' suggestion to fix that for 1.0 (next release).
Hot fixing of this thing so short before a release is a bit risky in my
opinion. It is easy to make errors (overlooking something, error not
visible because of cached older dependencies, ...), it happened more than
once during version upgr
Ah OK. Sorry, I misunderstood your intention.
2015-11-02 14:07 GMT+01:00 Maximilian Michels :
> > That would mean to have "flink-java_2.10" and "flink-java_2.11" artifacts
> > (and others that depend on flink-java and have no other Scala dependency)
> > in the 0.10.0 release and only "flink-java"
> That would mean to have "flink-java_2.10" and "flink-java_2.11" artifacts
> (and others that depend on flink-java and have no other Scala dependency)
> in the 0.10.0 release and only "flink-java" in the next 1.0 release.
My suggestion was to keep the Scala unsuffixed Scala 2.10 and add a
suffix
If we choose selective Scala version suffix for artifacts, we have to tell
which artifacts have the version suffix to newcomers. Some artifacts such as
"flink-java”, "flink-streaming-java" are easily recognized. But IMO, knowing
whether artifacts such as "flink-ml", "flink-clients", "flink-table
That would mean to have "flink-java_2.10" and "flink-java_2.11" artifacts
(and others that depend on flink-java and have no other Scala dependency)
in the 0.10.0 release and only "flink-java" in the next 1.0 release.
Do we want that?
2015-11-02 11:37 GMT+01:00 Maximilian Michels :
> I'm for leav
I'm for leaving it as-is and renaming all artifacts which depend on
Scala for the release following 0.10.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Fabian Hueske wrote:
> OK, let me try to summarize the discussion (and please correct me if I got
> something wrong).
>
> 1) Flink deploys Scala 2.11 snapshot
OK, let me try to summarize the discussion (and please correct me if I got
something wrong).
1) Flink deploys Scala 2.11 snapshot artifacts. Therefore, we have to
release 2.11 artifacts for the 0.10.0 release version as well.
2) Everybody agrees to appropriately tag all artifacts that have a
(tra
+1 for the approach discusses here, and for removing Scala dependencies
from modules that can be Scala independent.
It would be nice if pure Java users would not see any Scala versioning (on
flink-core, flink-java, later also flink-sreaming-java). I guess for any
runtime-related parts (including f
Good point. Didn't know that. We can still add them for the release.
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Alexander Alexandrov
wrote:
> My two cents - there are already Maven artifacts deployed for 2.11 in the
> SNAPSHOT repository. I think it might be confusing if they suddenly
> disappear for the s
My two cents - there are already Maven artifacts deployed for 2.11 in the
SNAPSHOT repository. I think it might be confusing if they suddenly
disappear for the stable release.
2015-10-29 11:58 GMT+01:00 Maximilian Michels :
> Seems like we agree that we need artifacts for different versions of S
Seems like we agree that we need artifacts for different versions of Scala
on Maven. There also seems to be a preference for including the version in
the artifact name.
I've created an issue and marked it to be resolved for 1.0. For the 0.10
release, we will have binaries but no Maven artifacts. T
No idea if I get a vote ;) Nevertheless, +1 to have binaries for both
versions in Maven and explicitly "scala versioned".
Some background on this for those not as familiar with scala versioning:
It's considered best practice to label what version of scala a library
uses in the artifact id.
T
+1 to have binaries for both versions in Maven and as build to download.
2015-10-26 17:11 GMT+01:00 Theodore Vasiloudis <
theodoros.vasilou...@gmail.com>:
> +1 for having binaries, I'm working on a Spark application currently with
> Scala 2.11 and having to rebuild everything when deploying e.g.
+1 for having binaries, I'm working on a Spark application currently with
Scala 2.11 and having to rebuild everything when deploying e.g. to EC2 is a
pain.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Ufuk Celebi wrote:
> I agree with Till, but is this something you want to address in this
> release already
I agree with Till, but is this something you want to address in this release
already?
I would postpone it to 1.0.0.
– Ufuk
> On 26 Oct 2015, at 16:17, Till Rohrmann wrote:
>
> I would be in favor of deploying also Scala 2.11 artifacts to Maven since
> more and more people will try out Flink w
I would be in favor of deploying also Scala 2.11 artifacts to Maven since
more and more people will try out Flink with Scala 2.11. Having the
dependencies in the Maven repository makes it considerably easier for
people to get their Flink jobs running.
Furthermore, I observed that people are not aw
24 matches
Mail list logo
