You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@joshua.apache.org by Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com> on 2016/06/20 18:34:39 UTC
[IMPORTANT] Roadmap for 6.1 Release
Hi Folks,
I've just smartened up Jira a bit with our Roadmap being defined as follows
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/joshua/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:roadmap-panel
Right now there are only 14/14 issues as RESOLVED for 6.1. This is false as
I know that many more issues have been addressed however I don't think that
Jira tickets have been created for all changes to the source code. Maybe
moving forward we could open Jira issues and link them to the Github
tickets via commit messages?
Additionally, everything that was currently UNRESOLVED has merely been
pushed to 6.2. If this is not what is required then please reassign the fix
version for any ticket(s) to 6.1 and we can fix.
Finally, are there any mitigating factor which would prevent a 6.1 release
candidate being prepared right now?
Thanks
Lewis
--
*Lewis*
Re: [IMPORTANT] Roadmap for 6.1 Release
Posted by Matt Post <po...@cs.jhu.edu>.
(Forgot to add: JIRA has taken some getting used to, but I'm starting to like it, along with all the other Apache tools. I think we just have to document better how to use it, keep encouraging folks to do so (like you did with your note about using the JIRA bug name in github comments), and wait till people adjust).
We should have this kind of information on the Joshua developer pages on Confluence...
> On Jun 23, 2016, at 4:56 PM, Matt Post <po...@cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Lewis,
>
> Sorry for taking some time to get back to you. I think the roadmap looks great. One thing, though, is that the Amazon folks and I have discussed making a number of backwards-incompatible changes in an effort to modernize some pieces of the code. This would have to do with things like the config file format, a totally new pipeline based on duct tape, and some other ideas. We think those changes would be suitable for a 7.0 release (major version number change signals backwards incompatibility).
>
> I think we've been doing some good work on improving Joshua, but at the same time, I think the release cycle is still little too accelerated for me. I would like to push back to semi- yearly or even yearly releases, with bug fixes in between. However, I'm also curious how this might affect our ability to move out of incubation. Do you have any thoughts on this?
>
> The major downsides to releases are documentation. It's just hard to find the time to do.
>
> My own thoughts for what I'd like to do:
>
> - Maybe a 6.1 release (soon, to get it out of the way? or otherwise this fall?), where we formalize the Apache move and maybe formalize the release of a handful of language packs, without a lot of other changes
>
> - Write a linux.com article advertising this, hopefully attracting some attention
>
> - Shoot for a 7.0 release with many of the changes we've discussed (some offline). If we get a good showing at MT Marathon in Prague this year, that could be a good time to get all of that in order.
>
> - Start getting to work on a version of Joshua that swaps out the core decoder for a neural approach
>
> matt
>
>
>
>
>> On Jun 23, 2016, at 4:13 PM, Tom Barber <to...@analytical-labs.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would volunteer some cycles for multi model support in the server and an
>> improved rest interface and basic UI for end user interaction if you fancy
>> it.
>>
>> --------------
>>
>> Director Meteorite.bi - Saiku Analytics Founder
>> Tel: +44(0)5603641316
>>
>> (Thanks to the Saiku community we reached our Kickstart
>> <http://kickstarter.com/projects/2117053714/saiku-reporting-interactive-report-designer/>
>> goal, but you can always help by sponsoring the project
>> <http://www.meteorite.bi/products/saiku/sponsorship>)
>>
>> On 23 June 2016 at 21:10, Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Folks,
>>> Anyone have any comments on this?
>>> Seeing that the Maven multimodule project seems to be taking flight, it
>>> would be nice to see where the roadmap is going?
>>> Any comments would be great. Also, I'm kinda lost as to what is happening
>>> with Jira but it looks like it is not really being used for much.
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
>>> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>> I've just smartened up Jira a bit with our Roadmap being defined as
>>> follows
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/joshua/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:roadmap-panel
>>>>
>>>> Right now there are only 14/14 issues as RESOLVED for 6.1. This is false
>>>> as I know that many more issues have been addressed however I don't think
>>>> that Jira tickets have been created for all changes to the source code.
>>>> Maybe moving forward we could open Jira issues and link them to the
>>> Github
>>>> tickets via commit messages?
>>>>
>>>> Additionally, everything that was currently UNRESOLVED has merely been
>>>> pushed to 6.2. If this is not what is required then please reassign the
>>> fix
>>>> version for any ticket(s) to 6.1 and we can fix.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, are there any mitigating factor which would prevent a 6.1
>>> release
>>>> candidate being prepared right now?
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Lewis
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Lewis*
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Lewis*
>>>
>
Re: [IMPORTANT] Roadmap for 6.1 Release
Posted by Matt Post <po...@cs.jhu.edu>.
I am thinking bi-annual, and agree that we should shoot for 6.1 as soon as possible, actually. Let's make master stable and then start tackling the few remaining issues, which seem reasonable to me:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JOSHUA/fixforversion/12335049/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
One issue not listed here was to switch the junit test cases to testng (I think that's what we decided).
The main thing I need to do is setup the language packs so that they can be used with Joshua 6.1.
matt
> On Jul 11, 2016, at 4:46 AM, kellen sunderland <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for organizing Lewis, sorry for the late replies. Looking at the
> frequency of our updates I'd suggest quarterly, or bi-annual releases. If
> we can keep the master branch stable (which should really be a goal of
> ours) then hopefully it's not too much work to create the releases. I do
> appreciate that there's probably some effort required to create release
> notes + documentation. Hopefully JIRA will be able to help us create some
> of this documentation.
>
> I'd agree that we should shoot for a 6.1 release fairly soon. I'll review
> the PRs that came from our side early after the Apache switch. They should
> probably have JIRA tickets tracking the changes with fix version assigned
> as 6.1.
>
> -Kellen
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Tom Barber <to...@analytical-labs.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hey Matt
>>
>> Over on OODT our releases are few and far between, although that said,
>> I've been trying to increase the frequency even if they are very minor. The
>> main reason being, if someone commits some code, they don't want to wait 12
>> months for it to hit a stable release! So you might say yearly major
>> releases and patch releases at sporadic points inbetween to include patches
>> people have submitted, this also keeps drive by committers interested
>> because if they get some stuff into the codebase they then may commit more,
>> rather than say "well I submitted a fix for issue x ages ago and its got
>> notwhere". Releases don't need to be set in stone, but I would try and
>> keep them ticking over.
>>
>> Just my own 2 cents.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> --------------
>>
>> Director Meteorite.bi - Saiku Analytics Founder
>> Tel: +44(0)5603641316
>>
>> (Thanks to the Saiku community we reached our Kickstart
>> <
>> http://kickstarter.com/projects/2117053714/saiku-reporting-interactive-report-designer/
>>>
>> goal, but you can always help by sponsoring the project
>> <http://www.meteorite.bi/products/saiku/sponsorship>)
>>
>> On 23 June 2016 at 21:56, Matt Post <po...@cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Lewis,
>>>
>>> Sorry for taking some time to get back to you. I think the roadmap looks
>>> great. One thing, though, is that the Amazon folks and I have discussed
>>> making a number of backwards-incompatible changes in an effort to
>> modernize
>>> some pieces of the code. This would have to do with things like the
>> config
>>> file format, a totally new pipeline based on duct tape, and some other
>>> ideas. We think those changes would be suitable for a 7.0 release (major
>>> version number change signals backwards incompatibility).
>>>
>>> I think we've been doing some good work on improving Joshua, but at the
>>> same time, I think the release cycle is still little too accelerated for
>>> me. I would like to push back to semi- yearly or even yearly releases,
>> with
>>> bug fixes in between. However, I'm also curious how this might affect our
>>> ability to move out of incubation. Do you have any thoughts on this?
>>>
>>> The major downsides to releases are documentation. It's just hard to find
>>> the time to do.
>>>
>>> My own thoughts for what I'd like to do:
>>>
>>> - Maybe a 6.1 release (soon, to get it out of the way? or otherwise this
>>> fall?), where we formalize the Apache move and maybe formalize the
>> release
>>> of a handful of language packs, without a lot of other changes
>>>
>>> - Write a linux.com article advertising this, hopefully attracting some
>>> attention
>>>
>>> - Shoot for a 7.0 release with many of the changes we've discussed (some
>>> offline). If we get a good showing at MT Marathon in Prague this year,
>> that
>>> could be a good time to get all of that in order.
>>>
>>> - Start getting to work on a version of Joshua that swaps out the core
>>> decoder for a neural approach
>>>
>>> matt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 23, 2016, at 4:13 PM, Tom Barber <to...@analytical-labs.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would volunteer some cycles for multi model support in the server and
>>> an
>>>> improved rest interface and basic UI for end user interaction if you
>>> fancy
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> --------------
>>>>
>>>> Director Meteorite.bi - Saiku Analytics Founder
>>>> Tel: +44(0)5603641316
>>>>
>>>> (Thanks to the Saiku community we reached our Kickstart
>>>> <
>>>
>> http://kickstarter.com/projects/2117053714/saiku-reporting-interactive-report-designer/
>>>>
>>>> goal, but you can always help by sponsoring the project
>>>> <http://www.meteorite.bi/products/saiku/sponsorship>)
>>>>
>>>> On 23 June 2016 at 21:10, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
>>> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>>> Anyone have any comments on this?
>>>>> Seeing that the Maven multimodule project seems to be taking flight,
>> it
>>>>> would be nice to see where the roadmap is going?
>>>>> Any comments would be great. Also, I'm kinda lost as to what is
>>> happening
>>>>> with Jira but it looks like it is not really being used for much.
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
>>>>> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>>>> I've just smartened up Jira a bit with our Roadmap being defined as
>>>>> follows
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/joshua/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:roadmap-panel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right now there are only 14/14 issues as RESOLVED for 6.1. This is
>>> false
>>>>>> as I know that many more issues have been addressed however I don't
>>> think
>>>>>> that Jira tickets have been created for all changes to the source
>> code.
>>>>>> Maybe moving forward we could open Jira issues and link them to the
>>>>> Github
>>>>>> tickets via commit messages?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Additionally, everything that was currently UNRESOLVED has merely
>> been
>>>>>> pushed to 6.2. If this is not what is required then please reassign
>> the
>>>>> fix
>>>>>> version for any ticket(s) to 6.1 and we can fix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally, are there any mitigating factor which would prevent a 6.1
>>>>> release
>>>>>> candidate being prepared right now?
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Lewis
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> *Lewis*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *Lewis*
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [IMPORTANT] Roadmap for 6.1 Release
Posted by kellen sunderland <ke...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for organizing Lewis, sorry for the late replies. Looking at the
frequency of our updates I'd suggest quarterly, or bi-annual releases. If
we can keep the master branch stable (which should really be a goal of
ours) then hopefully it's not too much work to create the releases. I do
appreciate that there's probably some effort required to create release
notes + documentation. Hopefully JIRA will be able to help us create some
of this documentation.
I'd agree that we should shoot for a 6.1 release fairly soon. I'll review
the PRs that came from our side early after the Apache switch. They should
probably have JIRA tickets tracking the changes with fix version assigned
as 6.1.
-Kellen
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Tom Barber <to...@analytical-labs.com>
wrote:
> Hey Matt
>
> Over on OODT our releases are few and far between, although that said,
> I've been trying to increase the frequency even if they are very minor. The
> main reason being, if someone commits some code, they don't want to wait 12
> months for it to hit a stable release! So you might say yearly major
> releases and patch releases at sporadic points inbetween to include patches
> people have submitted, this also keeps drive by committers interested
> because if they get some stuff into the codebase they then may commit more,
> rather than say "well I submitted a fix for issue x ages ago and its got
> notwhere". Releases don't need to be set in stone, but I would try and
> keep them ticking over.
>
> Just my own 2 cents.
>
> Tom
>
> --------------
>
> Director Meteorite.bi - Saiku Analytics Founder
> Tel: +44(0)5603641316
>
> (Thanks to the Saiku community we reached our Kickstart
> <
> http://kickstarter.com/projects/2117053714/saiku-reporting-interactive-report-designer/
> >
> goal, but you can always help by sponsoring the project
> <http://www.meteorite.bi/products/saiku/sponsorship>)
>
> On 23 June 2016 at 21:56, Matt Post <po...@cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi Lewis,
> >
> > Sorry for taking some time to get back to you. I think the roadmap looks
> > great. One thing, though, is that the Amazon folks and I have discussed
> > making a number of backwards-incompatible changes in an effort to
> modernize
> > some pieces of the code. This would have to do with things like the
> config
> > file format, a totally new pipeline based on duct tape, and some other
> > ideas. We think those changes would be suitable for a 7.0 release (major
> > version number change signals backwards incompatibility).
> >
> > I think we've been doing some good work on improving Joshua, but at the
> > same time, I think the release cycle is still little too accelerated for
> > me. I would like to push back to semi- yearly or even yearly releases,
> with
> > bug fixes in between. However, I'm also curious how this might affect our
> > ability to move out of incubation. Do you have any thoughts on this?
> >
> > The major downsides to releases are documentation. It's just hard to find
> > the time to do.
> >
> > My own thoughts for what I'd like to do:
> >
> > - Maybe a 6.1 release (soon, to get it out of the way? or otherwise this
> > fall?), where we formalize the Apache move and maybe formalize the
> release
> > of a handful of language packs, without a lot of other changes
> >
> > - Write a linux.com article advertising this, hopefully attracting some
> > attention
> >
> > - Shoot for a 7.0 release with many of the changes we've discussed (some
> > offline). If we get a good showing at MT Marathon in Prague this year,
> that
> > could be a good time to get all of that in order.
> >
> > - Start getting to work on a version of Joshua that swaps out the core
> > decoder for a neural approach
> >
> > matt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 23, 2016, at 4:13 PM, Tom Barber <to...@analytical-labs.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I would volunteer some cycles for multi model support in the server and
> > an
> > > improved rest interface and basic UI for end user interaction if you
> > fancy
> > > it.
> > >
> > > --------------
> > >
> > > Director Meteorite.bi - Saiku Analytics Founder
> > > Tel: +44(0)5603641316
> > >
> > > (Thanks to the Saiku community we reached our Kickstart
> > > <
> >
> http://kickstarter.com/projects/2117053714/saiku-reporting-interactive-report-designer/
> > >
> > > goal, but you can always help by sponsoring the project
> > > <http://www.meteorite.bi/products/saiku/sponsorship>)
> > >
> > > On 23 June 2016 at 21:10, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Folks,
> > >> Anyone have any comments on this?
> > >> Seeing that the Maven multimodule project seems to be taking flight,
> it
> > >> would be nice to see where the roadmap is going?
> > >> Any comments would be great. Also, I'm kinda lost as to what is
> > happening
> > >> with Jira but it looks like it is not really being used for much.
> > >> Thanks
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> > >> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Folks,
> > >>> I've just smartened up Jira a bit with our Roadmap being defined as
> > >> follows
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/joshua/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:roadmap-panel
> > >>>
> > >>> Right now there are only 14/14 issues as RESOLVED for 6.1. This is
> > false
> > >>> as I know that many more issues have been addressed however I don't
> > think
> > >>> that Jira tickets have been created for all changes to the source
> code.
> > >>> Maybe moving forward we could open Jira issues and link them to the
> > >> Github
> > >>> tickets via commit messages?
> > >>>
> > >>> Additionally, everything that was currently UNRESOLVED has merely
> been
> > >>> pushed to 6.2. If this is not what is required then please reassign
> the
> > >> fix
> > >>> version for any ticket(s) to 6.1 and we can fix.
> > >>>
> > >>> Finally, are there any mitigating factor which would prevent a 6.1
> > >> release
> > >>> candidate being prepared right now?
> > >>> Thanks
> > >>> Lewis
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> *Lewis*
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> *Lewis*
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [IMPORTANT] Roadmap for 6.1 Release
Posted by Tom Barber <to...@analytical-labs.com>.
Hey Matt
Over on OODT our releases are few and far between, although that said,
I've been trying to increase the frequency even if they are very minor. The
main reason being, if someone commits some code, they don't want to wait 12
months for it to hit a stable release! So you might say yearly major
releases and patch releases at sporadic points inbetween to include patches
people have submitted, this also keeps drive by committers interested
because if they get some stuff into the codebase they then may commit more,
rather than say "well I submitted a fix for issue x ages ago and its got
notwhere". Releases don't need to be set in stone, but I would try and
keep them ticking over.
Just my own 2 cents.
Tom
--------------
Director Meteorite.bi - Saiku Analytics Founder
Tel: +44(0)5603641316
(Thanks to the Saiku community we reached our Kickstart
<http://kickstarter.com/projects/2117053714/saiku-reporting-interactive-report-designer/>
goal, but you can always help by sponsoring the project
<http://www.meteorite.bi/products/saiku/sponsorship>)
On 23 June 2016 at 21:56, Matt Post <po...@cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
> Hi Lewis,
>
> Sorry for taking some time to get back to you. I think the roadmap looks
> great. One thing, though, is that the Amazon folks and I have discussed
> making a number of backwards-incompatible changes in an effort to modernize
> some pieces of the code. This would have to do with things like the config
> file format, a totally new pipeline based on duct tape, and some other
> ideas. We think those changes would be suitable for a 7.0 release (major
> version number change signals backwards incompatibility).
>
> I think we've been doing some good work on improving Joshua, but at the
> same time, I think the release cycle is still little too accelerated for
> me. I would like to push back to semi- yearly or even yearly releases, with
> bug fixes in between. However, I'm also curious how this might affect our
> ability to move out of incubation. Do you have any thoughts on this?
>
> The major downsides to releases are documentation. It's just hard to find
> the time to do.
>
> My own thoughts for what I'd like to do:
>
> - Maybe a 6.1 release (soon, to get it out of the way? or otherwise this
> fall?), where we formalize the Apache move and maybe formalize the release
> of a handful of language packs, without a lot of other changes
>
> - Write a linux.com article advertising this, hopefully attracting some
> attention
>
> - Shoot for a 7.0 release with many of the changes we've discussed (some
> offline). If we get a good showing at MT Marathon in Prague this year, that
> could be a good time to get all of that in order.
>
> - Start getting to work on a version of Joshua that swaps out the core
> decoder for a neural approach
>
> matt
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 2016, at 4:13 PM, Tom Barber <to...@analytical-labs.com> wrote:
> >
> > I would volunteer some cycles for multi model support in the server and
> an
> > improved rest interface and basic UI for end user interaction if you
> fancy
> > it.
> >
> > --------------
> >
> > Director Meteorite.bi - Saiku Analytics Founder
> > Tel: +44(0)5603641316
> >
> > (Thanks to the Saiku community we reached our Kickstart
> > <
> http://kickstarter.com/projects/2117053714/saiku-reporting-interactive-report-designer/
> >
> > goal, but you can always help by sponsoring the project
> > <http://www.meteorite.bi/products/saiku/sponsorship>)
> >
> > On 23 June 2016 at 21:10, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Folks,
> >> Anyone have any comments on this?
> >> Seeing that the Maven multimodule project seems to be taking flight, it
> >> would be nice to see where the roadmap is going?
> >> Any comments would be great. Also, I'm kinda lost as to what is
> happening
> >> with Jira but it looks like it is not really being used for much.
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> >> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Folks,
> >>> I've just smartened up Jira a bit with our Roadmap being defined as
> >> follows
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/joshua/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:roadmap-panel
> >>>
> >>> Right now there are only 14/14 issues as RESOLVED for 6.1. This is
> false
> >>> as I know that many more issues have been addressed however I don't
> think
> >>> that Jira tickets have been created for all changes to the source code.
> >>> Maybe moving forward we could open Jira issues and link them to the
> >> Github
> >>> tickets via commit messages?
> >>>
> >>> Additionally, everything that was currently UNRESOLVED has merely been
> >>> pushed to 6.2. If this is not what is required then please reassign the
> >> fix
> >>> version for any ticket(s) to 6.1 and we can fix.
> >>>
> >>> Finally, are there any mitigating factor which would prevent a 6.1
> >> release
> >>> candidate being prepared right now?
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Lewis
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> *Lewis*
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> *Lewis*
> >>
>
>
Re: [IMPORTANT] Roadmap for 6.1 Release
Posted by Matt Post <po...@cs.jhu.edu>.
Hi Lewis,
Sorry for taking some time to get back to you. I think the roadmap looks great. One thing, though, is that the Amazon folks and I have discussed making a number of backwards-incompatible changes in an effort to modernize some pieces of the code. This would have to do with things like the config file format, a totally new pipeline based on duct tape, and some other ideas. We think those changes would be suitable for a 7.0 release (major version number change signals backwards incompatibility).
I think we've been doing some good work on improving Joshua, but at the same time, I think the release cycle is still little too accelerated for me. I would like to push back to semi- yearly or even yearly releases, with bug fixes in between. However, I'm also curious how this might affect our ability to move out of incubation. Do you have any thoughts on this?
The major downsides to releases are documentation. It's just hard to find the time to do.
My own thoughts for what I'd like to do:
- Maybe a 6.1 release (soon, to get it out of the way? or otherwise this fall?), where we formalize the Apache move and maybe formalize the release of a handful of language packs, without a lot of other changes
- Write a linux.com article advertising this, hopefully attracting some attention
- Shoot for a 7.0 release with many of the changes we've discussed (some offline). If we get a good showing at MT Marathon in Prague this year, that could be a good time to get all of that in order.
- Start getting to work on a version of Joshua that swaps out the core decoder for a neural approach
matt
> On Jun 23, 2016, at 4:13 PM, Tom Barber <to...@analytical-labs.com> wrote:
>
> I would volunteer some cycles for multi model support in the server and an
> improved rest interface and basic UI for end user interaction if you fancy
> it.
>
> --------------
>
> Director Meteorite.bi - Saiku Analytics Founder
> Tel: +44(0)5603641316
>
> (Thanks to the Saiku community we reached our Kickstart
> <http://kickstarter.com/projects/2117053714/saiku-reporting-interactive-report-designer/>
> goal, but you can always help by sponsoring the project
> <http://www.meteorite.bi/products/saiku/sponsorship>)
>
> On 23 June 2016 at 21:10, Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Folks,
>> Anyone have any comments on this?
>> Seeing that the Maven multimodule project seems to be taking flight, it
>> would be nice to see where the roadmap is going?
>> Any comments would be great. Also, I'm kinda lost as to what is happening
>> with Jira but it looks like it is not really being used for much.
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
>> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Folks,
>>> I've just smartened up Jira a bit with our Roadmap being defined as
>> follows
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/joshua/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:roadmap-panel
>>>
>>> Right now there are only 14/14 issues as RESOLVED for 6.1. This is false
>>> as I know that many more issues have been addressed however I don't think
>>> that Jira tickets have been created for all changes to the source code.
>>> Maybe moving forward we could open Jira issues and link them to the
>> Github
>>> tickets via commit messages?
>>>
>>> Additionally, everything that was currently UNRESOLVED has merely been
>>> pushed to 6.2. If this is not what is required then please reassign the
>> fix
>>> version for any ticket(s) to 6.1 and we can fix.
>>>
>>> Finally, are there any mitigating factor which would prevent a 6.1
>> release
>>> candidate being prepared right now?
>>> Thanks
>>> Lewis
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Lewis*
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Lewis*
>>
Re: [IMPORTANT] Roadmap for 6.1 Release
Posted by Tom Barber <to...@analytical-labs.com>.
I would volunteer some cycles for multi model support in the server and an
improved rest interface and basic UI for end user interaction if you fancy
it.
--------------
Director Meteorite.bi - Saiku Analytics Founder
Tel: +44(0)5603641316
(Thanks to the Saiku community we reached our Kickstart
<http://kickstarter.com/projects/2117053714/saiku-reporting-interactive-report-designer/>
goal, but you can always help by sponsoring the project
<http://www.meteorite.bi/products/saiku/sponsorship>)
On 23 June 2016 at 21:10, Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> Anyone have any comments on this?
> Seeing that the Maven multimodule project seems to be taking flight, it
> would be nice to see where the roadmap is going?
> Any comments would be great. Also, I'm kinda lost as to what is happening
> with Jira but it looks like it is not really being used for much.
> Thanks
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Folks,
> > I've just smartened up Jira a bit with our Roadmap being defined as
> follows
> >
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/joshua/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:roadmap-panel
> >
> > Right now there are only 14/14 issues as RESOLVED for 6.1. This is false
> > as I know that many more issues have been addressed however I don't think
> > that Jira tickets have been created for all changes to the source code.
> > Maybe moving forward we could open Jira issues and link them to the
> Github
> > tickets via commit messages?
> >
> > Additionally, everything that was currently UNRESOLVED has merely been
> > pushed to 6.2. If this is not what is required then please reassign the
> fix
> > version for any ticket(s) to 6.1 and we can fix.
> >
> > Finally, are there any mitigating factor which would prevent a 6.1
> release
> > candidate being prepared right now?
> > Thanks
> > Lewis
> >
> > --
> > *Lewis*
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Lewis*
>
Re: [IMPORTANT] Roadmap for 6.1 Release
Posted by Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com>.
Hi Folks,
Anyone have any comments on this?
Seeing that the Maven multimodule project seems to be taking flight, it
would be nice to see where the roadmap is going?
Any comments would be great. Also, I'm kinda lost as to what is happening
with Jira but it looks like it is not really being used for much.
Thanks
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> I've just smartened up Jira a bit with our Roadmap being defined as follows
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/joshua/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:roadmap-panel
>
> Right now there are only 14/14 issues as RESOLVED for 6.1. This is false
> as I know that many more issues have been addressed however I don't think
> that Jira tickets have been created for all changes to the source code.
> Maybe moving forward we could open Jira issues and link them to the Github
> tickets via commit messages?
>
> Additionally, everything that was currently UNRESOLVED has merely been
> pushed to 6.2. If this is not what is required then please reassign the fix
> version for any ticket(s) to 6.1 and we can fix.
>
> Finally, are there any mitigating factor which would prevent a 6.1 release
> candidate being prepared right now?
> Thanks
> Lewis
>
> --
> *Lewis*
>
--
*Lewis*
Re: [IMPORTANT] Roadmap for 6.1 Release
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Thanks for doing the yeoman’s work Lewis
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Chief Architect
Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Director, Information Retrieval and Data Science Group (IRDS)
Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
WWW: http://irds.usc.edu/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 6/20/16, 11:34 AM, "Lewis John Mcgibbney" <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi Folks,
>I've just smartened up Jira a bit with our Roadmap being defined as follows
>
>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/joshua/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:roadmap-panel
>
>Right now there are only 14/14 issues as RESOLVED for 6.1. This is false as
>I know that many more issues have been addressed however I don't think that
>Jira tickets have been created for all changes to the source code. Maybe
>moving forward we could open Jira issues and link them to the Github
>tickets via commit messages?
>
>Additionally, everything that was currently UNRESOLVED has merely been
>pushed to 6.2. If this is not what is required then please reassign the fix
>version for any ticket(s) to 6.1 and we can fix.
>
>Finally, are there any mitigating factor which would prevent a 6.1 release
>candidate being prepared right now?
>Thanks
>Lewis
>
>--
>*Lewis*