mahout-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlie...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: consensus statement?
Date Tue, 06 May 2014 21:32:51 GMT
Pat et. al,

The whole problem with original suggested consensus statement is that it
reads as "we are building MLLib for Spark (oh wait, there's already such a
thing)" and then "we are building MLLib for 0xdata" and then perhaps for
something else. Which can't be farther from the true philosophy of what has
been done. If not it, then at best it reads as "we don't know what it is we
are building, but we are including some Spark dependencies now". So it is
either misleading, or sufficiently vague, not sure which is worse.

If a collection of backend-specific separated MLLibs is the new consensus,
i can't say i can share it. In fact, the only motivation for me to do
anything within this project was to fix everything that  (per my perhaps
lopsided perception) is less than ideal with the approach of building ML
projects as backend-specific collections of black-box trainers and solvers
and bring in an ideology similar to Julia and R to the jvm-based big data
ML .

If users are to love us, somehow i think it will not be because we ported
yet another flavor of K-means to Spark.

At this point I think it is a little premature to talk about an existing
consensus, it seems.

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Pat Ferrel <pat@occamsmachete.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> I personally won’t spend a lot of time generalizing right now.
> Contributors can help with that if they want or make suggestions.
>
> On May 6, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As a bit of commentary, it is clear that what the committers are working on
> is Spark
>

Mahout committers, with very rare exceptions, are not working on Spark.
Spark committers and contributors are working on Spark.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message