[DISCUSS] FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS] FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation

Stephan Ewen
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation

Ufuk Celebi-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation

Stephan Ewen
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation

Aljoscha Krettek-2
+1 I like it a lot!

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 18:43 Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation

Till Rohrmann
+1 for the FLIP and making streaming the common case. Very good proposal :-)

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1 I like it a lot!
>
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 18:43 Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation

Stephan Ewen
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 I like it a lot!
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 18:43 Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation

Ufuk Celebi-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > +1 I like it a lot!
>> >
>> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 18:43 Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> > 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
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation

Stephan Ewen
+1, thanks :-)

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > +1 I like it a lot!
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 18:43 Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >> > 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
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation

Till Rohrmann
+1 :-)

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1, thanks :-)
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > +1 I like it a lot!
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 18:43 Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> > >> > 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
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation

Aljoscha Krettek-2
+1

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 at 03:15 Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 :-)
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > +1, thanks :-)
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> > > 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 <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > +1 I like it a lot!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 18:43 Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > >> > 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
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation

Ufuk Celebi-2
Initial PR for the layout: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2387

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 at 03:15 Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> +1 :-)
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > +1, thanks :-)
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> 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 <[hidden email]
>> >
>> > > 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 <
>> > [hidden email]
>> > > >
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > +1 I like it a lot!
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 18:43 Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]>
>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> > > 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 <
>> [hidden email]
>> > >
>> > > >> > 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
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation

Aljoscha Krettek-2
I checked it out and I liked it. :-)

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 at 19:40 Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Initial PR for the layout: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2387
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 at 03:15 Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 :-)
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > +1, thanks :-)
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >> 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 <
> [hidden email]
> >> >
> >> > > 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 <
> >> > [hidden email]
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > +1 I like it a lot!
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 18:43 Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]>
> >> 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> >> > > 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 <
> >> [hidden email]
> >> > >
> >> > > >> > 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
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation

Till Rohrmann
I second Aljoscha :-)

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I checked it out and I liked it. :-)
>
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 at 19:40 Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Initial PR for the layout: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2387
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 at 03:15 Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1 :-)
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > +1, thanks :-)
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > >> 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 <
> > [hidden email]
> > >> >
> > >> > > 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 <
> > >> > [hidden email]
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> > +1 I like it a lot!
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 18:43 Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]>
> > >> 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 <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > >> > > 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 <
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > 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
> > >> > > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>
mxm
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation

mxm
Very nice work Ufuk!

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I second Aljoscha :-)
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> I checked it out and I liked it. :-)
>>
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 at 19:40 Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Initial PR for the layout: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2387
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > +1
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 at 03:15 Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> +1 :-)
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > +1, thanks :-)
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]>
>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> > >> 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 <
>> > [hidden email]
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > 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 <
>> > >> > [hidden email]
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >> wrote:
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >> > +1 I like it a lot!
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 18:43 Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]>
>> > >> 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 <
>> [hidden email]
>> > >
>> > >> > > 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 <
>> > >> [hidden email]
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > >> > 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
>> > >> > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >> > >
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> >
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-3 - Organization of Documentation

Ufuk Celebi-2
Merged to master :-) Furthermore, updated JIRA with sub tasks for the
missing content:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4463


On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Maximilian Michels <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Very nice work Ufuk!
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I second Aljoscha :-)
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I checked it out and I liked it. :-)
>>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 at 19:40 Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Initial PR for the layout: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2387
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > +1
>>> > >
>>> > > On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 at 03:15 Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> +1 :-)
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> > +1, thanks :-)
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]>
>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>> > >> 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 <
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > > 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 <
>>> > >> > [hidden email]
>>> > >> > > >
>>> > >> > > >> wrote:
>>> > >> > > >>
>>> > >> > > >> > +1 I like it a lot!
>>> > >> > > >> >
>>> > >> > > >> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 18:43 Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]>
>>> > >> 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 <
>>> [hidden email]
>>> > >
>>> > >> > > 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 <
>>> > >> [hidden email]
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> > > >> > 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
>>> > >> > > >> > > >
>>> > >> > > >> > >
>>> > >> > > >> >
>>> > >> > > >>
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>>