This is one motivation case why I think it's useful to have a central place
for improvement proposals.
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 21:17 Jan Kaul wrote:
> Up until 2 weeks ago the discussion took place in the Github issue but
> since then most people joined the discussion in the google doc. Since
>
Up until 2 weeks ago the discussion took place in the Github issue but
since then most people joined the discussion in the google doc. Since
the google doc seems to have more visibility I would propose to continue
the discussion there. I hope that's fine.
Best wishes,
Jan
On 08.11.23 07:09,
Are there parallel discussions? So far I have been following/commenting on
the issue [1], not the Google doc. Can we converge on the issue going
forward? Jan, if there are parallel discussions on the doc, could you
summarize the open topics from the doc in the issue? Else, we can close the
open top
Hi, Jan:
Thanks for the update. Left some comments and let's continue the discussion
in doc.
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 4:26 PM Jan Kaul wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> thanks again to those who left some comments on the Iceberg Materialized
> View spec. The discussions showed that there are still some open q
Hi all,
thanks again to those who left some comments on the Iceberg Materialized
View spec. The discussions showed that there are still some open
questions that need to be answered. I added a section to the end of the
document to highlight the decisions that need to be made. Please have
anoth
Thank you Dan and the others for your helpful comments. I've added some
sections to address the points that you mentioned. I'm not really sure
what you mean by fail after grace period.
I've found a design document for the trino materialized views and tried
to incorporate some of the points. I'
I added a few comments to the doc, but I think there a few other things
that probably need to be considered:
Do we define behaviors around freshness (fail after grace period or fall
back to view definition), what is the expectation for refreshes
(manual/just-in-time/lazy), etc.
I think there was
Daniel is right, we deviated :)
OK Brian, let's do that.
Apologies.
Regards
JB
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 8:40 PM Brian Olsen wrote:
>
> Agreed, apologies to Jan :). JB, let's discuss this at the sync this Wed, and
> after that we can create a new thread if needed.
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 1:
Agreed, apologies to Jan :). JB, let's discuss this at the sync this Wed,
and after that we can create a new thread if needed.
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 1:38 PM Daniel Weeks wrote:
> JB and Brian,
>
> I think we should probably move this discussion to a discuss thread
> specifically for the topics
JB and Brian,
I think we should probably move this discussion to a discuss thread
specifically for the topics you want to address.
We've had a few instances now where the original intent of the thread is
redirected to talk about other subjects. I don't feel this is a good
approach because, while
Oh, I don't say we have to provide a user mailing list. Personally, I
like mailing list mainly because we have https://lists.apache.org/
where we can browse and search on the mailing lists.
A lot of Apache projects are using Slack or Zulip, but in parallel of
mailing lists. As we say at Apache: "if
Yeah, unfortunately there's no way to limit the functionality to only
facilitate this. In fact, the product that gets closest to it is GitHub
Issues.
I believe putting the onus on developers deeply involved in the project
makes sense. Expecting users, especially newer users of a newer generation
w
The idea is really to "square" GH Discussion only to roadmap/design proposals.
For "user support", more than Slack, I would love to see
u...@iceberg.apache.org.
So I would distinguish:
- the design/spec proposals where we could use GH Discussions. If
people use GH Discussion for support questions
GitHub Discussions could be a solution that we should consider. We used it
on the Trino side but still have mixed results with it. On one hand,
there's a lot of overlap between creating Issues and Discussions. In fact,
GitHub allows you to migrate Issues that only involve discussing a topic,
or som
Just to be clear: we can GH Discussions subjects template via
.asf.yaml but we have to open a ticket to INFRA to enable it.
Regards
JB
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 1:56 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> Hi Brian
>
> I like the idea of GitHub. Why not enabling (in .asf.yml) GitHub
> discussions ? A G
Hi Brian
I like the idea of GitHub. Why not enabling (in .asf.yml) GitHub
discussions ? A GitHub Discussion could be a good place to share the
doc and exchange both in the doc and in the discussion comments.
Regards
JB
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 1:13 PM Brian Olsen wrote:
>
> Hey JB,
>
> I totally
Hey JB,
I totally agree we need a place to centralize this but I'm nit a huge fan
of all the lists we currently have going on the site. SSGs are just not an
accessible method of storing lists. ( roadmap, blogs, videos, etc..).
The roadmap is barely touched for this reason. I want to propose we mo
Hi, JB:
Thanks for replying.
I still want to hear what the community thinks, and have a discussion about
the format.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 10:27 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> Hi Jan
>
> Thanks for the reminder. I will take a look.
>
> As proposed by Renjie a few days ago, it would be grea
Hi, Jan:
Thanks for the proposal. I’ve scanned the doc and left some comments.
There are many interesting topics about materialized view, such as
incremental mv maintenance, view matching problem. It would be great if the
iceberg can support materialized view definition.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023
Hi Jan
Thanks for the reminder. I will take a look.
As proposed by Renjie a few days ago, it would be great to
gather/store all document proposals in a central place.
If there are no objections, I will prepare a PR for the website about
that (with a space listing/linking all proposals).
Regards
20 matches
Mail list logo
