I also think that these are excellent tasks. A cleanup of JIRA and branching legacy/unused code would be an excellent start in order to cleanup master. Lewis
On 2019/11/21 11:09:53, Michael Anderson <michael.arthur.ander...@gmail.com> wrote: > To expand on that thought: > > Remove the UI. > Remove anything related to virtualization and / or migrate it to AWS / > Kubernetes. > Remove any test or example that is not self contained (i.e. depends on > inputs that are not publicly available). Shrink the examples to a smaller > number which exercise a larger number of features. > Either move mccsearch to the examples or migrate the core functions to the > core library. > > Regarding the JIRA, I'd suggested that anything more than 2 years old can > closed off. > > I'd suggest this would make it both easier for people looking to contribute > to find an impactful entry point and also simplify the migration path if > it's to be consolidated into Alex's new library. > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 5:25 AM Michael Anderson < > michael.arthur.ander...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > One of the challenges of working on the current project is that it isn't > > always clear which of the sub folders are deprecated / some of the JIRA are > > quite old and the original requestor is no longer interested. I'd offer > > that an aggressive pruning of the JIRA and sub folders would make it easier > > for people to engage on features that would be most impactful and long > > lived. Barring that, that is what I find appealing about Alex's > > suggestion as it clearly delineates what is no longer being supported and > > gives a clearer roadmap on where to make the most impactful contributions. > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 4:49 PM Goodman, Alexander (US 398K) > > <alexander.good...@jpl.nasa.gov.invalid> wrote: > > > >> Hi Lewis, > >> > >> I can't say I completely disagree with your assessment. I would go even > >> further and argue what you are saying has been true not just for 3 months > >> but for at least since the 1.3.0 release, if not longer. But to be fair, > >> most of the contributions to OCW including BCDP have been made possible by > >> JPL/NASA funding our labor. Even though Kyo and I have had some success in > >> obtaining a little bit more funding, it has been a very difficult path when > >> we are the only primary developers, compared to the distant past when many > >> more people were on board which is something I explain in the slides I sent > >> as being one of the primary motivators for developing BCDP. The hope is > >> that a more up to date API could alleviate some of the problems we have > >> been having with maintaining the codebase since it's much smaller (xarray > >> helps make many of the things we were previously doing more elegant and > >> concise after all...), but it is still not quite at the stage where it can > >> fully replace the current API, and I hope we can reach that final step with > >> just a bit more funding. > >> > >> As someone with more knowledge about ASF protocol than I, I do think we > >> should have a discussion about what our future software development > >> practices should be, and we should definitely reach an agreement on what > >> the best approach for adding BCDP to our repository is (and CMDA for that > >> matter). I definitely don't want to just dump everything haphazardly into > >> separate subfolders like we always do (which is something I mentioned in a > >> recent JIRA issue thread that you may recall), but ideally we would like to > >> at least keep the OCW brand alive. However if things continue to operate at > >> the same sluggish pace and scale as they have been for sometime, then > >> perhaps we should assess the merit of continuing to keep such a small > >> project under the ASF's care. If we choose to declare the death of OCW, so > >> be it, but I will still release BCDP as a separate project outside the ASF > >> if I must. > >> > >> Kyo is on vacation for the rest of the week, but I am free to talk with > >> you more about this offline if you are around this week since I'd like to > >> have a very indepth discussion. Would you be interested? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Alex > >> On 11/20/19, 12:25 PM, "Lewis John McGibbney" <lewi...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >> This gets at my original statement. To expand however, let me state, > >> project activity is very low, new contributions are not being reviewed, the > >> roadmap is not clear, there seems to be a proposal to literally drop-in > >> replace current master OCW codebase with BCDP which has yet to be open > >> sourced. > >> None of this is particularly pro-community growth. > >> I am not particularly happy with the way the community is being > >> managed here at Apache. Nothing is particularly clear. The community seems > >> very stagnant and pretty much dead. This is in agreement with > >> reporter.apache.org community health score which is -3.47 and indicates > >> that work is required. > >> This thread actually is the most activity the project has seen in the > >> last 3 months! > >> I had to file the PMC report this month... for those who want to see > >> what that looked like please monitor whimsy. > >> I think some timelines backing up Alex's proposals are needed. > >> Otherwise we are just delaying the slow death of OCW further. > >> Lewis > >> > >> On 2019/11/20 16:52:47, Michael Anderson < > >> michael.arthur.ander...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > That’s pretty interesting. I like adding incremental features > >> with the goal of replacing rather than outright demise of the old library. > >> > > >> > Sent from my iPhone > >> > > >> > > On Nov 20, 2019, at 11:08 AM, Goodman, Alexander (US 398K) > >> <alexander.good...@jpl.nasa.gov.invalid> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Since the plots didn't attach in the last message, here they are: > >> > > > >> > > https://i.imgur.com/mAuq0R5.png > >> > > https://i.imgur.com/TeRYSPI.png > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > Alex > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: Goodman, Alexander (US 398K) > >> <alexander.good...@jpl.nasa.gov.INVALID> > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 8:05 AM > >> > > To: dev@climate.apache.org > >> > > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] Retire OCW? > >> > > > >> > > Hi Michael, > >> > > > >> > > Please see this overview slide: > >> > > https://i.imgur.com/VnijQ5C.png > >> > > > >> > > Here is also a link of some older slides which have a lot more > >> details: > >> > > > >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1nhD3_fZmVcmBnq9NiMBYeDMsxr5kIimI7dE9NNUQJEM/edit?usp=sharing > >> > > > >> > > I also created an end-to-end processing benchmark that I compared > >> with the current OCW, which I have attached in two plots: One with > >> regridding and one without, since the difference is so vast. I first > >> presented these results at the AMS Annual meeting last year in Phoenix. > >> > > > >> > > Let me know if you have any questions. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > Alex > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: Michael Anderson <michael.arthur.ander...@gmail.com> > >> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 5:59 PM > >> > > To: dev@climate.apache.org > >> > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] Retire OCW? > >> > > > >> > > Do you have an overview of the new library you could share? It'd > >> be interesting how big the gap between the old and new would be / rough LOE > >> to add parity. > >> > > > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 7:35 PM Alex Goodman <good...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi Lewis, > >> > >> > >> > >> To add some more specifics, the new xarray-based API I have > >> developed > >> > >> for OCW called BCDP (Big Climate Data Pipeline) has recently > >> been > >> > >> approved for release to open source. Keep in mind, this is a > >> > >> completely new API that is not backwards compatible, so we were > >> > >> planning to maintain both the old and new API under one > >> repository > >> > >> (either as separate subfolders or git > >> > >> branches) until the new API has enough functionality to fully > >> replace > >> > >> the old one. To accelerate this process and encourage more > >> > >> development, both Kyo and I are seeking some additional funding > >> > >> sources which we should be more certain about early next year. > >> When I > >> > >> first conceived BCDP, I was originally planning on releasing it > >> to > >> > >> open source as a separate project outside of OCW, but after some > >> > >> discussion we thought that it would be better to maintain the > >> OCW brand for it if possible. > >> > >> > >> > >> Does this make sense? > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Alex > >> > >>> On 2019/11/20 00:17:22, lewis john mcgibbney < > >> lewi...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> I got this from Kyo offline > >> > >>> > >> > >>> “There is enough motivation to keep OCW going. Alex has almost > >> > >>> refactored OCW and Seungwon Lee's CMDA will be a part of OCW.” > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Some of us will remember that CMDA was retired from the Apache > >> > >>> Incubator previously. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> It would be great if these plans could be hashed out on the > >> mailing > >> > >>> list > >> > >> so > >> > >>> we can move forward either way. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Lewis > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 09:32 Lewis John Mcgibbney < > >> > >>> lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> Hi Folks, > >> > >>>> Project activity is very low and new contributions are not > >> being > >> > >> reviewed. > >> > >>>> Simply, is it time to retire OCW to the Apache Attic? > >> > >>>> Best > >> > >>>> Lewis > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> -- > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> *Lewis* > >> > >>>> Dr. Lewis J. McGibbney Ph.D, B.Sc > >> > >>>> *Skype*: lewis.john.mcgibbney > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> -- > >> > >>> http://home.apache.org/~lewismc/ > >> > >>> http://people.apache.org/keys/committer/lewismc > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> >
