flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Maximilian Michels <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation
Date Mon, 22 Aug 2016 14:10:24 GMT
Very nice work Ufuk!

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Till Rohrmann <trohrmann@apache.org> wrote:
> I second Aljoscha :-)
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljoscha@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I checked it out and I liked it. :-)
>>
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 at 19:40 Ufuk Celebi <uce@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Initial PR for the layout: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2387
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljoscha@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > > +1
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 at 03:15 Till Rohrmann <trohrmann@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> +1 :-)
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > +1, thanks :-)
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Ufuk Celebi <uce@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > If there are no objections, I would like to work on this
in the
>> next
>> > >> > > days. I would like to only do the restructuring and don't
add any
>> > new
>> > >> > > content (e.g. we would have a few empty pages in the beginning).
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> > > > I added to the "Application Development" Docs the Section
>> "Types,
>> > >> > > > TypeInformation, Serialization".
>> > >> > > > I think that is an important enough aspect to warrant
separate
>> > docs.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Till Rohrmann <
>> > trohrmann@apache.org
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > wrote:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >> +1 for the FLIP and making streaming the common
case. Very good
>> > >> > proposal
>> > >> > > >> :-)
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Aljoscha Krettek
<
>> > >> > aljoscha@apache.org
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >> wrote:
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >> > +1 I like it a lot!
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 18:43 Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >> > > My take would be to take streaming as
the common case and
>> > make
>> > >> > > special
>> > >> > > >> > > sections for batch.
>> > >> > > >> > >
>> > >> > > >> > > We can still have a few streaming-only
sections (end to end
>> > >> > exactly
>> > >> > > >> once)
>> > >> > > >> > > and a few batch-only sections (optimizer).
>> > >> > > >> > >
>> > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Ufuk
Celebi <
>> uce@apache.org
>> > >
>> > >> > > wrote:
>> > >> > > >> > >
>> > >> > > >> > > > I very much like this proposal. This
is long overdue. Our
>> > >> > > >> > > > documentation never "broke up" with
the old batch focus.
>> > >> That's
>> > >> > > where
>> > >> > > >> > > > the current structure comes from
and why people often
>> don't
>> > >> find
>> > >> > > what
>> > >> > > >> > > > they are looking for. We were trying
to treat streaming
>> and
>> > >> > batch
>> > >> > > as
>> > >> > > >> > > > equals. We never were "brave" enough
to move
>> streaming-only
>> > >> > > concepts
>> > >> > > >> > > > to the top-level. I really like that
you are proposing
>> this
>> > >> now
>> > >> > > (for
>> > >> > > >> > > > example for Event time, State Backends
etc.). I would
>> love
>> > to
>> > >> > have
>> > >> > > >> > > > this go hand in hand with the 1.2
release.
>> > >> > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >> > > > What is your opinion about pages
affecting both streaming
>> > and
>> > >> > > batch
>> > >> > > >> > > > like "Connectors" or "Failure model"?
We could have the
>> > >> landing
>> > >> > > page
>> > >> > > >> > > > cover the general material (e.g.
restart strategies) and
>> > then
>> > >> > have
>> > >> > > >> > > > sub-pages for streaming- and batch-specific
stuff. Or we
>> > treat
>> > >> > > >> > > > streaming as the common case and
have a sub-section for
>> > batch.
>> > >> > We
>> > >> > > >> > > > probably have to decide this case-by-case,
but to me it
>> > feels
>> > >> > like
>> > >> > > >> > > > this was the main problem with the
old documentation
>> > structure
>> > >> > > >> > > > (content is a different story of
course ;)).
>> > >> > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >> > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 4:09 PM,
Stephan Ewen <
>> > >> sewen@apache.org
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > >> > wrote:
>> > >> > > >> > > > > Hi all!
>> > >> > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > >> > > > > I posted another FLIP - this
time about a suggestion to
>> > make
>> > >> > the
>> > >> > > >> > > > > documentation more accessible.
>> > >> > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > >> > > > > FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation
>> > >> > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >> > >
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-
>> 3+-+Organization+of+Documentation
>> > >> > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > >> > > > > The issue of accessibility of
information came up
>> > repeatedly
>> > >> > > from
>> > >> > > >> > > users I
>> > >> > > >> > > > > talked to, so this is a suggestion
how to improve this.
>> > >> > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > >> > > > > Greetings,
>> > >> > > >> > > > > Stephan
>> > >> > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >> > >
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> >
>>

Mime
View raw message