Skip to content

Conversation

@tillrohrmann
Copy link
Contributor

What is the purpose of the change

We no longer need builds for vendor specific repos as Flink no longer
bundles Hadoop dependencies. Putting the dependencies on the classpath
should be good enough.

cc @zentol

Verifying this change

This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage.

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

  • Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (no)
  • The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): (no)
  • The serializers: (no)
  • The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (no)
  • Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: (no)
  • The S3 file system connector: (no)

Documentation

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (no)
  • If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable)

We no longer need builds for vendor specific repos as Flink no longer
bundles Hadoop dependencies. Putting the dependencies on the classpath
should be good enough.
@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Jan 2, 2020

Thanks a lot for your contribution to the Apache Flink project. I'm the @flinkbot. I help the community
to review your pull request. We will use this comment to track the progress of the review.

Automated Checks

Last check on commit a6b6ede (Thu Jan 02 14:19:01 UTC 2020)

Warnings:

  • 1 pom.xml files were touched: Check for build and licensing issues.
  • No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!

Mention the bot in a comment to re-run the automated checks.

Review Progress

  • ❓ 1. The [description] looks good.
  • ❓ 2. There is [consensus] that the contribution should go into to Flink.
  • ❓ 3. Needs [attention] from.
  • ❓ 4. The change fits into the overall [architecture].
  • ❓ 5. Overall code [quality] is good.

Please see the Pull Request Review Guide for a full explanation of the review process.

Details
The Bot is tracking the review progress through labels. Labels are applied according to the order of the review items. For consensus, approval by a Flink committer of PMC member is required Bot commands
The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

  • @flinkbot approve description to approve one or more aspects (aspects: description, consensus, architecture and quality)
  • @flinkbot approve all to approve all aspects
  • @flinkbot approve-until architecture to approve everything until architecture
  • @flinkbot attention @username1 [@username2 ..] to require somebody's attention
  • @flinkbot disapprove architecture to remove an approval you gave earlier

Copy link
Contributor

@zentol zentol left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The mapr_setup docs still reference this profile; not sure whether they require significant changes. May not be that trivial due to the whole zookeeper thing.

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Jan 2, 2020

CI report:

Bot commands The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:
  • @flinkbot run travis re-run the last Travis build
  • @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

@tillrohrmann
Copy link
Contributor Author

I thought the vendor specific documentation has been removed with f6ce8dd. I assume that the mapr_setup.html file is just a left over.

Copy link
Contributor

@zentol zentol left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah my bad, I was checking it locally and I'm not on the latest master.

+1

@tillrohrmann
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for the review @zentol. Merging this PR now.

@tillrohrmann tillrohrmann deleted the dropVendorSpecificRepos branch January 3, 2020 13:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants