systemml-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Deron Eriksson <deroneriks...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] SystemML 0.11 release
Date Sat, 30 Jul 2016 21:05:30 GMT
+1 for quick release cycle
+1 for 2.0 support
+1 for simplified release artifacts

Simplifying the release artifacts could potentially halve the time it
requires for me to validate a release, so I am definitely in favor of that.
I really like the idea of having essentially one or two artifacts that we
can point users to (the standard jar and the tar.gz/zip standalone
artifacts that contain 'everything'). I think this will definitely help
increase adoption, especially if our high-level documentation focuses on
these artifacts.

Deron




On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Niketan Pansare <npansar@us.ibm.com>
wrote:

> +1 for quick release cycle and adding 2.0 support.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Niketan Pansare
> IBM Almaden Research Center
> E-mail: npansar At us.ibm.com
> http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view.php?person=us-npansar
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for dusenberrymw---07/28/2016 09:17:08
> AM---I'm definitely in favor of releasing as soon as possible, as]dusenberrymw---07/28/2016
> 09:17:08 AM---I'm definitely in favor of releasing as soon as possible, as
> well as moving to quick release cycles.
>
> From: dusenberrymw@gmail.com
> To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org
> Date: 07/28/2016 09:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SystemML 0.11 release
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> I'm definitely in favor of releasing as soon as possible, as well as
> moving to quick release cycles.  In addition to adding 2.0 support, we
> should also slim down our release artifacts to a single, simple
> distribution (in addition to the required 'source' distribution) to make
> adoption easier.
>
> -Mike
>
> --
>
> Mike Dusenberry
> GitHub: github.com/dusenberrymw
> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/mikedusenberry
>
> Sent from my iPhone.
>
>
> > On Jul 28, 2016, at 8:26 AM, Glenn Weidner <gweidner@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Given that Spark 2.0 is officially released, we should also
> incorporate/verify compatibility with Spark 2.0 for SystemML 0.11 release.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Glenn
> >
> > Berthold Reinwald---07/28/2016 03:42:37 AM---Having a release with
> feature complete frame support is a good idea. API completeness needs to be
> v
> >
> > From: Berthold Reinwald/Almaden/IBM@IBMUS
> > To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org
> > Date: 07/28/2016 03:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SystemML 0.11 release
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Having a release with feature complete frame support is a good idea. API
> > completeness needs to be verified.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Berthold Reinwald
> > IBM Almaden Research Center
> > office: (408) 927 2208; T/L: 457 2208
> > e-mail: reinwald@us.ibm.com
> >
> >
> >
> > From:   Acs S <acs_s@yahoo.com.INVALID>
> > To:     "dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org"
> > <dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org>
> > Date:   07/28/2016 12:56 AM
> > Subject:        Re: [DISCUSS] SystemML 0.11 release
> >
> >
> >
> > That makes sense.
> > Going forward we should plan on having release at fix interval (+/- few
> > days) with some key features.Probably quarterly release will be one
> > suggestion.
> > -Arvind
> >
> >      From: Matthias Boehm <mboehm@us.ibm.com>
> > To: dev <dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 11:09 PM
> > Subject: [DISCUSS] SystemML 0.11 release
> >
> >
> >
> > Soon, we'll be done with the native frame support and various API
> changes.
> > This seems to be a good point in time to create our next 0.11 release.
> > What
> > do you think? In case the majority is in favor, let's collect the open
> > features and issues here in this thread.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Matthias
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

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