Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[FLINK-3879] [gelly] Native implementation of HITS algorithm #1967

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from
Closed

[FLINK-3879] [gelly] Native implementation of HITS algorithm #1967

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

greghogan
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@greghogan greghogan force-pushed the 3879_native_implementation_of_hits_algorithm branch 2 times, most recently from 0a961e0 to bc372aa Compare May 9, 2016 17:51
@greghogan greghogan force-pushed the 3879_native_implementation_of_hits_algorithm branch from bc372aa to 4fc2d24 Compare June 23, 2016 18:09
greghogan added a commit to greghogan/flink that referenced this pull request Jun 23, 2016
@greghogan
[FLINK-3879] [gelly] Native implementation of HITS algorithm
4fc2d24 
This closes apache#1967
@greghogan greghogan force-pushed the 3879_native_implementation_of_hits_algorithm branch from 4fc2d24 to 95b30dc Compare June 27, 2016 13:32
greghogan added a commit to greghogan/flink that referenced this pull request Jun 27, 2016
@greghogan
[FLINK-3879] [gelly] Native implementation of HITS algorithm
855e36c 
This closes apache#1967
@greghogan greghogan force-pushed the 3879_native_implementation_of_hits_algorithm branch from 95b30dc to b546ebe Compare June 27, 2016 18:49
@greghogan greghogan force-pushed the 3879_native_implementation_of_hits_algorithm branch from b546ebe to cb57970 Compare June 28, 2016 12:53
@asfgit asfgit closed this in e64237d Jun 28, 2016
@vasia
Copy link
Contributor

vasia commented Jun 28, 2016

Hey @greghogan,
was there consensus regarding this change? I see the numbers, but did anyone review this PR?
I've been offline for the past few days, and I now see that nobody reviewed #2160, #2079, #2067, #1997 either...
I don't doubt that you have done a great job, but it is always better to let someone review your code before you merge. We don't usually merge PRs without a +1 unless it is something trivial. I understand things move faster this way, but we are in a community and we should try to collaborate.
Please, leave a comment next time you think a PR has stayed with no review for a long time or ping me personally if you want a 2nd pair of eyes on gelly stuff :)
Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
component=Library/GraphProcessing(Gelly)
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
3 participants
@greghogan @vasia @rmetzger