You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mahout.apache.org by Sebastian Schelter <ss...@apache.org> on 2014/04/28 08:19:05 UTC
Future of Frequent Pattern Mining
Hi,
I'm resending this mail to also include the users list. To wrap up: We
currently have a discussion whether our frequent pattern mining package
should stay in the codebase. The original author suggested to remove the
original implementation and maybe retain the FPGrowth2 implementation.
I'd like to ask our users here on their opionion, is anybody opposed to
removing the frequent pattern mining code from Mahout? Please shout out.
--sebastian
Re: Future of Frequent Pattern Mining
Posted by Sebastian Schelter <ss...@apache.org>.
I'm very much in favor of this idea.
On 04/28/2014 10:52 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> One thought is to extract the code, publish on github with warnings about
> no support. Then if there are requests, we can point them to the GH
> archive and tell them to go for it.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Suneel Marthi <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +100 to purging this from the codebase. This stuff uses the old MR api and
>> would have to be upgraded not to mention that this was removed from 0.9 and
>> was restored only because one user wanted it who promised to maintain it
>> and has not been heard from.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Sebastian Schelter <ss...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm resending this mail to also include the users list. To wrap up: We
>>> currently have a discussion whether our frequent pattern mining package
>>> should stay in the codebase. The original author suggested to remove the
>>> original implementation and maybe retain the FPGrowth2 implementation.
>>>
>>> I'd like to ask our users here on their opionion, is anybody opposed to
>>> removing the frequent pattern mining code from Mahout? Please shout out.
>>>
>>> --sebastian
>>>
>>
>
Re: Future of Frequent Pattern Mining
Posted by Sebastian Schelter <ss...@apache.org>.
I don't think we have to extract the code, people can pull it out of the
0.9 releases sources which are in svn.
We have not heard any opposition from a production users of this code
here, nor has someone stepped up to maintain this code (and we've asked
for the second time), so let's finish what we already aimed for in the
0.9 release and remove it.
I'll prepare a patch.
--sebastian
On 04/28/2014 10:52 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> One thought is to extract the code, publish on github with warnings about
> no support. Then if there are requests, we can point them to the GH
> archive and tell them to go for it.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Suneel Marthi <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +100 to purging this from the codebase. This stuff uses the old MR api and
>> would have to be upgraded not to mention that this was removed from 0.9 and
>> was restored only because one user wanted it who promised to maintain it
>> and has not been heard from.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Sebastian Schelter <ss...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm resending this mail to also include the users list. To wrap up: We
>>> currently have a discussion whether our frequent pattern mining package
>>> should stay in the codebase. The original author suggested to remove the
>>> original implementation and maybe retain the FPGrowth2 implementation.
>>>
>>> I'd like to ask our users here on their opionion, is anybody opposed to
>>> removing the frequent pattern mining code from Mahout? Please shout out.
>>>
>>> --sebastian
>>>
>>
>
Re: Future of Frequent Pattern Mining
Posted by Sebastian Schelter <ss...@apache.org>.
I don't think we have to extract the code, people can pull it out of the
0.9 releases sources which are in svn.
We have not heard any opposition from a production users of this code
here, nor has someone stepped up to maintain this code (and we've asked
for the second time), so let's finish what we already aimed for in the
0.9 release and remove it.
I'll prepare a patch.
--sebastian
On 04/28/2014 10:52 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> One thought is to extract the code, publish on github with warnings about
> no support. Then if there are requests, we can point them to the GH
> archive and tell them to go for it.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Suneel Marthi <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +100 to purging this from the codebase. This stuff uses the old MR api and
>> would have to be upgraded not to mention that this was removed from 0.9 and
>> was restored only because one user wanted it who promised to maintain it
>> and has not been heard from.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Sebastian Schelter <ss...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm resending this mail to also include the users list. To wrap up: We
>>> currently have a discussion whether our frequent pattern mining package
>>> should stay in the codebase. The original author suggested to remove the
>>> original implementation and maybe retain the FPGrowth2 implementation.
>>>
>>> I'd like to ask our users here on their opionion, is anybody opposed to
>>> removing the frequent pattern mining code from Mahout? Please shout out.
>>>
>>> --sebastian
>>>
>>
>
Re: Future of Frequent Pattern Mining
Posted by Sebastian Schelter <ss...@apache.org>.
I'm very much in favor of this idea.
On 04/28/2014 10:52 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> One thought is to extract the code, publish on github with warnings about
> no support. Then if there are requests, we can point them to the GH
> archive and tell them to go for it.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Suneel Marthi <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +100 to purging this from the codebase. This stuff uses the old MR api and
>> would have to be upgraded not to mention that this was removed from 0.9 and
>> was restored only because one user wanted it who promised to maintain it
>> and has not been heard from.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Sebastian Schelter <ss...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm resending this mail to also include the users list. To wrap up: We
>>> currently have a discussion whether our frequent pattern mining package
>>> should stay in the codebase. The original author suggested to remove the
>>> original implementation and maybe retain the FPGrowth2 implementation.
>>>
>>> I'd like to ask our users here on their opionion, is anybody opposed to
>>> removing the frequent pattern mining code from Mahout? Please shout out.
>>>
>>> --sebastian
>>>
>>
>
Re: Future of Frequent Pattern Mining
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
One thought is to extract the code, publish on github with warnings about
no support. Then if there are requests, we can point them to the GH
archive and tell them to go for it.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Suneel Marthi <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
> +100 to purging this from the codebase. This stuff uses the old MR api and
> would have to be upgraded not to mention that this was removed from 0.9 and
> was restored only because one user wanted it who promised to maintain it
> and has not been heard from.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Sebastian Schelter <ss...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm resending this mail to also include the users list. To wrap up: We
> > currently have a discussion whether our frequent pattern mining package
> > should stay in the codebase. The original author suggested to remove the
> > original implementation and maybe retain the FPGrowth2 implementation.
> >
> > I'd like to ask our users here on their opionion, is anybody opposed to
> > removing the frequent pattern mining code from Mahout? Please shout out.
> >
> > --sebastian
> >
>
Re: Future of Frequent Pattern Mining
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
One thought is to extract the code, publish on github with warnings about
no support. Then if there are requests, we can point them to the GH
archive and tell them to go for it.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Suneel Marthi <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
> +100 to purging this from the codebase. This stuff uses the old MR api and
> would have to be upgraded not to mention that this was removed from 0.9 and
> was restored only because one user wanted it who promised to maintain it
> and has not been heard from.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Sebastian Schelter <ss...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm resending this mail to also include the users list. To wrap up: We
> > currently have a discussion whether our frequent pattern mining package
> > should stay in the codebase. The original author suggested to remove the
> > original implementation and maybe retain the FPGrowth2 implementation.
> >
> > I'd like to ask our users here on their opionion, is anybody opposed to
> > removing the frequent pattern mining code from Mahout? Please shout out.
> >
> > --sebastian
> >
>
Re: Future of Frequent Pattern Mining
Posted by Suneel Marthi <sm...@apache.org>.
+100 to purging this from the codebase. This stuff uses the old MR api and
would have to be upgraded not to mention that this was removed from 0.9 and
was restored only because one user wanted it who promised to maintain it
and has not been heard from.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Sebastian Schelter <ss...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm resending this mail to also include the users list. To wrap up: We
> currently have a discussion whether our frequent pattern mining package
> should stay in the codebase. The original author suggested to remove the
> original implementation and maybe retain the FPGrowth2 implementation.
>
> I'd like to ask our users here on their opionion, is anybody opposed to
> removing the frequent pattern mining code from Mahout? Please shout out.
>
> --sebastian
>
Re: Future of Frequent Pattern Mining
Posted by Suneel Marthi <sm...@apache.org>.
+100 to purging this from the codebase. This stuff uses the old MR api and
would have to be upgraded not to mention that this was removed from 0.9 and
was restored only because one user wanted it who promised to maintain it
and has not been heard from.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Sebastian Schelter <ss...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm resending this mail to also include the users list. To wrap up: We
> currently have a discussion whether our frequent pattern mining package
> should stay in the codebase. The original author suggested to remove the
> original implementation and maybe retain the FPGrowth2 implementation.
>
> I'd like to ask our users here on their opionion, is anybody opposed to
> removing the frequent pattern mining code from Mahout? Please shout out.
>
> --sebastian
>
Re: Future of Frequent Pattern Mining
Posted by Michael Wechner <mi...@wyona.com>.
Hi Sebastian
Thanks for your reply. I agree that makes sense.
I am not familiar enough with the codebase of Mahout, but generally
speaking it might make sense to "modularize" it somehow, such that
algorithms like the fpgrowth code could be downloaded separately
independent of the core codebase.
Thanks
Michael
Am 28.04.14 08:32, schrieb Sebastian Schelter:
> Hi Michael,
>
> the problem is that currently nodoby is maintaining the fpgrowth code
> anymore or working on documentation for it, that's why we consider it
> to be a candidate for removal. I don't see much value in keeping
> algorithms in the codebase if nobody is maintaining them, answering
> questions and providing documentation. If someone opposes here who has
> that code in production, that could be a reason to retain it however.
>
> People wanting to use the code in the future can always download
> Mahout 0.9 which has the current implementation.
>
> --sebastian
>
>
> On 04/28/2014 08:23 AM, Michael Wechner wrote:
>> what is the alternative and if one would still want to use the "frequent
>> pattern mining code" in the future, how
>> would this be possible otherwise?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> Am 28.04.14 08:19, schrieb Sebastian Schelter:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm resending this mail to also include the users list. To wrap up: We
>>> currently have a discussion whether our frequent pattern mining
>>> package should stay in the codebase. The original author suggested to
>>> remove the original implementation and maybe retain the FPGrowth2
>>> implementation.
>>>
>>> I'd like to ask our users here on their opionion, is anybody opposed
>>> to removing the frequent pattern mining code from Mahout? Please shout
>>> out.
>>>
>>> --sebastian
>>
>
Re: Future of Frequent Pattern Mining
Posted by Sebastian Schelter <ss...@apache.org>.
Hi Michael,
the problem is that currently nodoby is maintaining the fpgrowth code
anymore or working on documentation for it, that's why we consider it to
be a candidate for removal. I don't see much value in keeping algorithms
in the codebase if nobody is maintaining them, answering questions and
providing documentation. If someone opposes here who has that code in
production, that could be a reason to retain it however.
People wanting to use the code in the future can always download Mahout
0.9 which has the current implementation.
--sebastian
On 04/28/2014 08:23 AM, Michael Wechner wrote:
> what is the alternative and if one would still want to use the "frequent
> pattern mining code" in the future, how
> would this be possible otherwise?
>
> Thanks
>
> Michael
>
> Am 28.04.14 08:19, schrieb Sebastian Schelter:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm resending this mail to also include the users list. To wrap up: We
>> currently have a discussion whether our frequent pattern mining
>> package should stay in the codebase. The original author suggested to
>> remove the original implementation and maybe retain the FPGrowth2
>> implementation.
>>
>> I'd like to ask our users here on their opionion, is anybody opposed
>> to removing the frequent pattern mining code from Mahout? Please shout
>> out.
>>
>> --sebastian
>
Re: Future of Frequent Pattern Mining
Posted by Sebastian Schelter <ss...@apache.org>.
Hi Michael,
the problem is that currently nodoby is maintaining the fpgrowth code
anymore or working on documentation for it, that's why we consider it to
be a candidate for removal. I don't see much value in keeping algorithms
in the codebase if nobody is maintaining them, answering questions and
providing documentation. If someone opposes here who has that code in
production, that could be a reason to retain it however.
People wanting to use the code in the future can always download Mahout
0.9 which has the current implementation.
--sebastian
On 04/28/2014 08:23 AM, Michael Wechner wrote:
> what is the alternative and if one would still want to use the "frequent
> pattern mining code" in the future, how
> would this be possible otherwise?
>
> Thanks
>
> Michael
>
> Am 28.04.14 08:19, schrieb Sebastian Schelter:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm resending this mail to also include the users list. To wrap up: We
>> currently have a discussion whether our frequent pattern mining
>> package should stay in the codebase. The original author suggested to
>> remove the original implementation and maybe retain the FPGrowth2
>> implementation.
>>
>> I'd like to ask our users here on their opionion, is anybody opposed
>> to removing the frequent pattern mining code from Mahout? Please shout
>> out.
>>
>> --sebastian
>
Re: Future of Frequent Pattern Mining
Posted by Michael Wechner <mi...@wyona.com>.
what is the alternative and if one would still want to use the "frequent
pattern mining code" in the future, how
would this be possible otherwise?
Thanks
Michael
Am 28.04.14 08:19, schrieb Sebastian Schelter:
> Hi,
>
> I'm resending this mail to also include the users list. To wrap up: We
> currently have a discussion whether our frequent pattern mining
> package should stay in the codebase. The original author suggested to
> remove the original implementation and maybe retain the FPGrowth2
> implementation.
>
> I'd like to ask our users here on their opionion, is anybody opposed
> to removing the frequent pattern mining code from Mahout? Please shout
> out.
>
> --sebastian