+1 what tog says
From: tog Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 12:22 AM Subject: Interpreter with no test. To: [email protected] +1 This seems to be a recurrent topic ;-) It has to be decided what are the core interpreters the Zeppelin want to support - then I would believe you can have a wiki/webpage dedicated to listing all interpreters that are known to be working with Zeppelin. You may even consider having recommended plugins and/or ranking in case 2 plugins are doing the same job. Grails (but it is probably not the only one) is implementing this (see https://grails.org/plugins/) In order to keep Zeppelin low in term of footprint - the core commiters can even decide to support some of those plugins (shell for example) At one end of the spectrum you could imagine Zeppelin without any interpreters and at the other end Zeppelin with all known plugins - the truth is probably in the middle. On Wednesday, July 22, 2015, Anthony Corbacho <[email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > Hi, > > IT CTO is right, right now, zeppelin merge every interpreter in the code > base and its mean that we (committer) have to take care of build falling or > questions for those interpreters. and personally i have no experience in > presto, cassandra etcetc. > > I think, It can be interesting to detach interpreters from zeppelin code > base and create a sortof plug'n'play module where the users can plug the > interpreter he wants to use. > > With this approach, we can keep zeppelin code base smaller (we provide the > core + maybe some interpreters (spark, md, shell) as default). and the > community can build and manage other interpreters (i assume if they build > it they have experiences and probably can answer questions). > > What do you think? > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:34 PM, IT CTO <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think the question is what\who is going to fix issues in these > > Interpreters if something fails? > > I am guessing that if one uses these interpreters and approach the > > community with questions then we might not have the right support for > him. > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:04 AM moon soo Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > There're some open pullrequests with complete interpreter > implementation > > > but no test (eg. https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/110 > , > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/68). > > > > > > Personally, I'm feeling not safe having code without test, but at the > > same > > > time, keeping these great contributions unmerged sounds not cool. > > > > > > I'd like to hear opinions about merging them with some mark such as > > 'beta' > > > or 'untested', and create issue for adding test. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > moon > > > > > > -- PGP KeyID: 2048R/EA31CFC9 subkeys.pgp.net
