+1 RE: Merge 208 and/or 702 as they're ready - so zeppelin can benefit from the merits of both approaches. That’s been my understanding as well, as discussed in this [1] thread.
+1 on Tom’s comments as well. Hoping for no more arguing in this dev list - so we can get back to our regularly scheduled positive ASF contribution spirit. Best, Jeff [1] http://apache-zeppelin-incubating-dev-mailing-list.75694.x6.nabble.com/R-interpreter-in-Zeppelin-further-steps-tp6967.html On 3/29/16, 4:35 PM, "moon soo Lee" <m...@apache.org> wrote: >My position is merge 208 and/or 702 as they're ready. So zeppelin can take >both merits. > >I've seen some people +1 on 208 in this thread. And i'm clearly +1 for >merge both, and some other people are +1 for merge both in previous >thread[1]. And Jeff provided very good technical merits of two. And no -1 >on 208, 702. > >So i think plan on merge 208 and 702 is well aligned with community desire. > >That's my understanding. > >Now, can you explain why do you think people disagree on this position? > >Thanks, >moon > >[1] >http://apache-zeppelin-incubating-dev-mailing-list.75694.x6.nabble.com/R-interpreter-in-Zeppelin-further-steps-tp6967.html > >On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 4:00 PM Amos Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> No Moon - You've got it backwards. No-one supports *your* position. >> >> *You* are ignoring the community and attempting to impose your will on >> everyone else. >> >> This is the fifth time we've had a thread about this, and the fifth time >> its come out the same way. >> >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 6:55 PM, moon soo Lee <m...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > > >> > > Moon --- People disagree with you. >> > >> > >> > >> > Amos, disagreeing on any opinion is fine but you're not representing all >> > people in the community. >> > >> > So you'll need to explain a) who disagree on b) what and c) where other >> > people find those disagreement. >> > Otherwise, it's going to be considered you're just trying to impose your >> > personal desires on the others. >> > >> > So could you answer a), b) and c) ? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > moon >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:00 PM Amos B. Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Moon --- People disagree with you. Rather than keep going >> back-and-forth >> > > about it, I started this discussion to clear up any question about the >> > > sense of the community. >> > > >> > > This is the apache way. You have said many times, "community before >> > code." >> > > >> > > How many more people do you need to hear from? How many more >> discussion >> > > threads saying the same thing do you need to see? >> > > >> > > > On Mar 29, 2016, at 2:50 PM, moon soo Lee <m...@apache.org> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Hi, >> > > > >> > > > Answers inline. >> > > > >> > > >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:08 AM Amos Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> Kos & Moon -- >> > > >> >> > > >> The gist of this thread, is that people disagree with what Moon >> has >> > > said >> > > >> regarding code quality, whether 208 breaks CI (and if so, why), and >> > > whether >> > > >> its appropriate to merge 702, as Moon has proposed. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > Like Kos mentioned, please do not impose your personal desires on the >> > > > others. You don't need to try define people agree on something or >> > > disagree >> > > > on something. >> > > > >> > > > People have different opinions. Just let people express their opinion >> > > > themselves. >> > > > >> > > > Can you do that? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> Since this saga started, we've had 5 threads to get the sense of >> the >> > > >> community on what to do. All of those came out the same way. More >> > > than a >> > > >> dozen people have asked for the same thing. >> > > >> >> > > > Isn't it time to just get this done so we can all move on? >> > > >> >> > > >> (If Moon believes there's a real CI issue here, I have no doubt that >> > it >> > > >> will be solved an hour after merge --- as Moon undertook to do back >> in >> > > >> December.) >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > I have no good technical reason to merge single PR that does not pass >> > CI >> > > > and not merge all other PR that also does not pass CI. >> > > > >> > > > As i explained in previous email, it's more like problem of policy. >> If >> > > you >> > > > have good technical reason to change the policy, please start a >> > > discussion. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > moon >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:53 PM, moon soo Lee <m...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Hi, >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Regarding CI test about 208, >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Zeppelin have several profiles for CI test. Each profile tests >> > Zeppelin >> > > >>> with different Spark Version. Also it different profiles different >> > > level >> > > >> of >> > > >>> tests (integration test using selenium). >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Current status of 208 in CI test is, passing single profile, fails >> > all >> > > >>> other profiles. Which is exactly the same status that i have helped >> > 208 >> > > >> few >> > > >>> months ago by the way. see. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-173423103 >> > > >>> >> > > >>> 208 has some code interacts with Spark. And 7 CI profile out of 8 >> are >> > > for >> > > >>> test code against various version of Spark. While Zeppelin used to >> > > >> supports >> > > >>> multiple version of Spark, from range of 1.1 ~ 1.6. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> SparkInterpreter (scala) >> > > >>> PySparkInterpreter (python) >> > > >>> SqlInterpreter (spark sql) >> > > >>> >> > > >>> supports all versions of spark in the profile (pyspark supports >> from >> > > >> 1.2). >> > > >>> I think it's very strait forward to expect the same quality for R >> > > >>> interpreter. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> I can suggest two possible way, >> > > >>> >> > > >>> - Keep working on make all profile of CI green. While 208 already >> > > passes >> > > >>> one profile and test in all other profiles are the same but only >> > > against >> > > >>> different spark version, it won't be that difficult to make it pass >> > all >> > > >>> other profile. >> > > >>> - Or activate 208 only for spark 1.6 and mark/document which is >> > minimum >> > > >>> version requirement of spark. Like Pyspark interpreter did >> (requires >> > > >> spark >> > > >>> 1.2 or newer). >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Regarding code merge policy, >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Zeppelin community had been make sure CI pass before merge in to >> > > master, >> > > >>> since it's beginning, until now. That's i believe another consensus >> > > that >> > > >> we >> > > >>> believed we have in the community. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> That's only reason keep spoken why 208 is not merged for last 4 >> > months. >> > > >>> And only reason for all other PR forced to make CI green before it >> > > get's >> > > >>> merged. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Personally i think not breaking master branch is valuable while >> that >> > > >> makes >> > > >>> any contributor start contribution safely at any point from master >> > > >> branch. >> > > >>> And users who want to try latest community work can safely test >> > > Zeppelin >> > > >>> from master branch. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> But if anyone think Zeppelin community need to discuss about it, >> > please >> > > >>> start a discussion. I'm happy to see discussion happens. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Thanks, >> > > >>> moon >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:31 AM Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org >> > >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>>> hmm.... that's getting weird again. So, far I failed to see: >> > > >>>> - CI issues being addressed. If the consensus of the community to >> > > >> merge >> > > >>> in >> > > >>>> something, break the CI and collect the technical debts - that's >> > > >> fine >> > > >>>> and >> > > >>>> that's your choice (I am not here to pass the judgement on the >> > > >> quality >> > > >>>> of >> > > >>>> the code) >> > > >>>> - a consensus to keep anyone away from _anything_ in the project >> > > >>> matters. >> > > >>>> Please do not impose your personal desires on the others. While >> > > >> you're >> > > >>>> entitled to express them (free speech and all that), no one is >> > > >>> entitled >> > > >>>> to >> > > >>>> listen, less oblige by it (based on the same principles of >> > > >> individual >> > > >>>> rights). >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> So, please keep it civil and find a way to improve the code, if >> > > needed, >> > > >>>> and get >> > > >>>> it in once the committers are satisfied with its quality. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Cos >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:51AM, Amos B. Elberg wrote: >> > > >>>>> Moon - no. That is the opposite of what people are saying. >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> I started this thread because I feel that you are disregarding >> the >> > > >>>> consensus >> > > >>>>> of the community. >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> The thread asks for two things - 208 to be merged without further >> > > >>> delay, >> > > >>>> and >> > > >>>>> for you to stay out of the issue of R interpreters entirely. 702 >> > can >> > > >>> be >> > > >>>>> addressed after 208 is merged. >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> How many more people do you need to hear from? >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>>> On Mar 29, 2016, at 5:40 AM, moon soo Lee <m...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Hi folks, >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> I didn't see anyone disagreement merge 208 and/or 702 in this >> > > >> thread >> > > >>>> and >> > > >>>>>> previous thread [1], as they're ready. while they both have >> > > >> technical >> > > >>>>>> merits as Jeff summarized really well. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Now i can see 208 finally made some progress on CI [2]. Hope >> > > >> continue >> > > >>>> the >> > > >>>>>> work and make CI green. Also I can see 702 is trying to >> finishing >> > > >> up >> > > >>>> and >> > > >>>>>> waiting for CI become green. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> I don't want to merge something that breaks CI. If then, it >> > becomes >> > > >>>> make >> > > >>>>>> very difficult to verify all other contributions. Other >> > > >> contributions >> > > >>>> are >> > > >>>>>> as important as these two. Hope community can understand that. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Considering recent progress of both contributions, i expect >> > they'll >> > > >>> be >> > > >>>>>> ready anytime soon. And then we can finally merge them. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> About merging 702, 208 contributions, does this sounds clear? >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> If they're both merged, It's possible to improve both >> RInterpreter >> > > >> by >> > > >>>>>> taking each others advantage. Therefore, no reason to worry at >> > this >> > > >>>> point >> > > >>>>>> about which one is better, which one has advantages, which one >> > will >> > > >>>> merge >> > > >>>>>> before the other, etc. Both have pros and cons and both will >> help >> > > >>>> Zeppelin >> > > >>>>>> thankfully. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> Thanks, >> > > >>>>>> moon >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> [1] >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> http://apache-zeppelin-incubating-dev-mailing-list.75694.x6.nabble.com/R-interpreter-in-Zeppelin-further-steps-tp6967.html >> > > >>>>>> [2] >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-202682652 >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:45 AM enzo < >> > > >>> e...@smartinsightsfromdata.com> >> > > >>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> I am looking forward to see 208 merged, *soon* please. From my >> > > >>> tests >> > > >>>> it >> > > >>>>>>> seems that this should be the priority. >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> I think 702 has merits (but I’ve used it less) and deserves to >> be >> > > >>>> merged >> > > >>>>>>> too once ready. >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> Ultimately after a period of "real road” testing we will be >> able >> > > >> to >> > > >>>>>>> understand what we really need. >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> E.g. from past discussions I am not convinced that either PR >> > > >> would, >> > > >>>>>>> as-it-is, support fully the needs of a multi-user Zeppelin >> > Server >> > > >>>> approach >> > > >>>>>>> (something similar to RStudio Server Professional to get an >> > idea). >> > > >>> A >> > > >>>>>>> period of use and gradual evolution (and possibly merge?) will >> be >> > > >>>> required. >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> The sooner we start the better. >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> Enzo >> > > >>>>>>> e...@smartinsightsfromdata.com >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> On 29 Mar 2016, at 07:08, Jeff Steinmetz < >> > > >>>> jeffrey.steinm...@gmail.com> >> > > >>>>>>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> I’m not affiliated to either author nor have any attachment to >> > an >> > > >>>>>>> specific outcome - and happy to continue being as objective and >> > > >>>> unbiased as >> > > >>>>>>> possible. >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> I would say they now have different philosophical approaches >> (as >> > > >> of >> > > >>>> the >> > > >>>>>>> March 23rd merge of datalayer#7 to 702). >> > > >>>>>>>> I agree with Amos Elberg that 702 has changed directions a few >> > > >>> times. >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> Re: commits to 702 by Leemoonsoo on March 23 via datalayer#7: >> > > >>>>>>>> I found the current state of the 702 PR to be succinct, in >> > terms >> > > >>> of >> > > >>>>>>> it’s code base, via its use of the SparkR dependency - which is >> > > >>>> already >> > > >>>>>>> baked into spark distribution. >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> The 702 code base appears to be easier to maintain using this >> > > >>>> approach >> > > >>>>>>> (less code, no rscala source, no BSD licensing additions >> > required, >> > > >>>> easier >> > > >>>>>>> to read). >> > > >>>>>>>> 702 packages correctly with -Pbuild-distr as expected - i.e. >> it >> > > >>> works >> > > >>>>>>> out of gate from the distribution directory. >> > > >>>>>>>> The build profile -Psparkr worked as expected, and the >> addition >> > > >> of >> > > >>>> this >> > > >>>>>>> profile felt intuitive to me. >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> Myself and a colleague that uses R extensively noticed (as >> Amos >> > > >>>> Elberg >> > > >>>>>>> reminded us): >> > > >>>>>>>> 208 handles passing arrays and other data types between scala >> & >> > R >> > > >>>> more >> > > >>>>>>> gracefully than 702. >> > > >>>>>>>> 208 handles the output of intermediate R calls more gracefully >> > > >> than >> > > >>>> 702. >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> Beyond that: >> > > >>>>>>>> 208 Requires SPARK_HOME to be set or the interpreter hangs >> with >> > > >> no >> > > >>>>>>> error. It’s been mentioned by the 208 author that the >> > requirement >> > > >>> to >> > > >>>> set >> > > >>>>>>> SPARK_HOME is a feature. I think we could revisit this >> > assumption >> > > >>>> now that >> > > >>>>>>> I see how 702 handles this with defaults via a graceful >> fallback. >> > > >>>>>>>> 702 works fine with zero configuration, I.e for those that >> want >> > > >> to >> > > >>>> test >> > > >>>>>>> locally with no separate spark distribution installed >> (SPARK_HOME >> > > >>>> does not >> > > >>>>>>> need to be set). >> > > >>>>>>>> 702 having just an %r interpreter, and having it as part of >> the >> > > >>> spark >> > > >>>>>>> interpreter (same subdirectory) feels like a cleaner approach >> > > >> (this >> > > >>> is >> > > >>>>>>> arguably a philosophical difference again). >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> It feels like an exhaustive list of >> `.z.show.googleVis(Motion)` >> > > >>> type >> > > >>>>>>> calls in 208 could bloom into unnecessary code maintenance >> > > >> overhead >> > > >>>> and >> > > >>>>>>> required additions every time a new chart library is >> introduced, >> > > >> vs. >> > > >>>> a more >> > > >>>>>>> generic show method. Perhaps a follow on improvement post >> merge >> > > >>>> (applies >> > > >>>>>>> to both PRs). >> > > >>>>>>>> This same chart rendering works in 702 with `print(Motion, >> > > >>>> tag='chart’)` >> > > >>>>>>> which isn’t necessarily better or worse, again, a different >> > > >>>> philosophical >> > > >>>>>>> approach. >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> They both have merit in different regards. It’s doesn’t feel >> > > >>>>>>> appropriate to make a broad statement that "no-one supported >> > 702”. >> > > >>>>>>>> If I had a magic wand, it would be a hybrid of the two >> > > >> approaches. >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> I look forward to continuing the review of each PR >> individually >> > > >> or >> > > >>>> both >> > > >>>>>>> collaboratively. >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> Regards, >> > > >>>>>>>> Jeff >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> On 3/28/16, 4:13 PM, "Sourav Mazumder" < >> > > >>> sourav.mazumde...@gmail.com >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> All said and done we had enough discussion on this point for >> > > >> many >> > > >>>> months >> > > >>>>>>>>> now. As far as I know, 208 is the PR which community/people >> > > >> have >> > > >>>> so far >> > > >>>>>>>>> used mostly and successfully (at least me and whoever I >> > > >> introduced >> > > >>>> to >> > > >>>>>>> 208 >> > > >>>>>>>>> for SparkR support). I thought it was going to be merged a >> long >> > > >>> time >> > > >>>>>>> ago. >> > > >>>>>>>>> May be what will make sense is to first integrate the 208. >> > > >> After >> > > >>>> that, >> > > >>>>>>> a >> > > >>>>>>>>> new PR can be created on that and if 702 has anything extra >> > then >> > > >>>> that >> > > >>>>>>>>> feature can be added. >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Regards, >> > > >>>>>>>>> Sourav >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Eran Witkon < >> > > >>> eranwit...@gmail.com >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> @Elberg, If I were you I would ask myself why isn't the >> > > >> community >> > > >>>>>>> taking >> > > >>>>>>>>>> part in this debate? >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Personally I prefer a team player as a contributor over the >> > > >> best >> > > >>>>>>> developer. >> > > >>>>>>>>>> just my 2c >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Eran >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 at 09:52 Amos B. Elberg < >> > > >>> amos.elb...@gmail.com >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Moon - I opened this discussion so it could take place with >> > > >> the >> > > >>>>>>> community >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> as a whole, not just you. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Suffice it to say, I disagree with every one of the >> technical >> > > >>>> claims >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> you've just made, and I don't trust your intent. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Let the community process happen. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 28, 2016, at 2:47 AM, moon soo Lee < >> m...@apache.org> >> > > >>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Simply put, >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - 702 and/or 208 will can merged as they're ready. [1] >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - 208 will not be merged while it does not pass CI. If you >> > > >>> think >> > > >>>> code >> > > >>>>>>>>>> in >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 208 is not a problem but CI itself or other part of >> Zeppelin >> > > >> is >> > > >>>>>>>>>> problem, >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> then that particular problem be fixed before merge 208. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - 702 has proper integration test [2] >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure why you're so hard at devaluating 702. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 702 is not something you need to beat and win. 702 is >> > > >> something >> > > >>>> you >> > > >>>>>>>>>> need >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> help / learn / collaborate. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Will you able to show your ability to collaborate with >> other >> > > >>>>>>> community >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> members? >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> moon >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> http://apache-zeppelin-incubating-dev-mailing-list.75694.x6.nabble.com/R-interpreter-in-Zeppelin-further-steps-tp6967.html >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [2] >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/702/files#diff-64a9440e811c5fba6ac1b61157fa6912R87 >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 7:11 PM Amos Elberg < >> > > >>>> amos.elb...@gmail.com> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saddened to have to start this thread *again*. >> While >> > I >> > > >>>> thought >> > > >>>>>>>>>> we >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> had >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> reached consensus on this, several times over, apparently >> > > >> some >> > > >>>>>>> people >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree. I hope this will be the last time. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> With this thread, I am asking the community to reach >> > > >> consensus >> > > >>>> (1) >> > > >>>>>>>>>> That >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 208 >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should be merged this week, without further delay; and >> (2) >> > > >>> That >> > > >>>> Moon >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Lee >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Soo and Felix Cheung take no further part in the >> > discussions >> > > >>> of >> > > >>>> 208 >> > > >>>>>>>>>> and >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 702. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This PR has been pending since August. It has been >> stalled >> > > >>> that >> > > >>>>>>> entire >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> time >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for no technical reason. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We reached agreement to merge 208 in November, again in >> > > >>>> December, >> > > >>>>>>> and >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> again >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in February -- when Moon agreed to stay out of the issue. >> > > >> At >> > > >>>> that >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> point, >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex, I, and others, began working on it, and appeared to >> > be >> > > >>>> making >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial progress. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> And then Alex just stopped. Instead, he commenced the >> > > >> thread >> > > >>>> saying >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> that a >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> consensus had to be reached on 208 and 702. Until that >> > > >> point, >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> essentially >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> no-one had paid attention to 702. In the discussion that >> > > >>>> followed, >> > > >>>>>>> we >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> reached a consensus to merge 208 as soon as possible. >> > After >> > > >>> the >> > > >>>>>>>>>> thread >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> had >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> died, Alex asked if anyone had additional comments, and >> > Moon >> > > >>>>>>> popped-in >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> insist that both PRs be merged. Again, no-one supported >> > > >> 702. >> > > >>>> At >> > > >>>>>>> all. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Each time I said "we had a consensus before, does anyone >> > > >> want >> > > >>> to >> > > >>>>>>>>>> change >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it," Alex or Moon steered the discussion away. The final >> > > >> vote >> > > >>>> was >> > > >>>>>>> not >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> merge 702 or merge "both" -- it was to treat them as >> normal >> > > >>> PRs. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> (Although >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> one person did want both merged simultaneously.) That >> > would >> > > >>>> mean >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> completing 208 on its merits and then evaluating 702. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> At the time, I objected to the discussion, because I >> > thought >> > > >>> the >> > > >>>>>>> whole >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> thing was a contrived excuse for Moon to reject 208 by >> > > >> pushing >> > > >>>> 702. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> That >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is exactly what he is now seeking to do. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Status of 208 & 702* >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> PR 208 has been feature-complete and testable since early >> > > >>>> September. >> > > >>>>>>>>>> It >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> has been adopted by more than 1000 users, who I have been >> > > >>>> supporting >> > > >>>>>>>>>> for >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> more than six months. The code has not undergone any >> major >> > > >>>> changes >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> since >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> September. There are no known bugs, and no outstanding >> > > >> feature >> > > >>>>>>>>>> requests >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be satisfied without major changes to the >> Zeppelin >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> architecture. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 208 does *not* fail CI. 208 includes extensive unit >> tests >> > > >> of >> > > >>>> the >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> R-Spark >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> integration because this turned out to get broken by >> > changes >> > > >>> in >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Zeppelin >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> often. Because CI is unable at present to provide a >> > > >>> consistent >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> environment, 208's *OWN UNIT TESTS*, which pass when run >> on >> > > >> an >> > > >>>>>>>>>> ordinary >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> machine, fail when run on CI. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 208 does need a push for compatibility with a recently >> > > >> adopted >> > > >>>> PR -- >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> that >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is work I've essentially completed, but have not pushed. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> PR 702 is a re-design based on 208 -- not just >> > architecture, >> > > >>> but >> > > >>>>>>> right >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> down >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to the choice of demo images, which were taken from 208's >> > > >>>>>>>>>> documentation. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, 702 has had been re-engineered several times to >> > > >> more >> > > >>>>>>> closely >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> conform to 208's architecture and feature set. But 702 >> > > >> still >> > > >>>>>>> remains >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> feature-incomplete -- it cannot handle the range of >> > > >>>> visualizations, >> > > >>>>>>> R >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> classes, etc., that 208 can. It is not stable code, and >> > > >> shows >> > > >>> no >> > > >>>>>>> signs >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> of >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stabilizing any time soon. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one has adopted 702. It has changed radically, >> > > >>>> fundamentally, at >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> least >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4 times over the past two months since it was submitted. >> > > >> One >> > > >>> of >> > > >>>>>>> those >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> changes was only days ago. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 702 also has no proper tests, which is the excuse for not >> > > >>>> merging >> > > >>>>>>> 208. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 702 >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> has things labelled "tests," but they don't actually >> > attempt >> > > >>> to >> > > >>>>>>>>>> connect >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> R or Spark, which are the things that break and which >> > > >>> therefore >> > > >>>> need >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> testing. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *** >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like credit for my own work and design. I think I >> > > >> have >> > > >>>> more >> > > >>>>>>>>>> than >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> earned that. >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > >> > >>
