I'm sorry if something in the previous message was not clear, but I would rather prefer not to be misinterpreted.
I'm all for merging 208, the technical things that are blocking us from getting there were identified by PPMC members long ago and still are the same, all listed in [1]. I love Tom's proposal and am looking forward particular action items and people volunteering on technical help with it. Each message in this thread leaves me personally less time to do so. 1. https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208 -- Alex On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Amos Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com> wrote: > If Tom's proposal is off the table -- which seems to be what Alex said in > the discussion on 208 -- then what we're left with is just merge it. > > That is what quite a few people in this thread wanted to do. > > It's *also* what people in the *last* thread wanted to do. > > I will continue to ignore the nasty personal comments. > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <b...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > It's even $128K question, as indeed, there is no reason not to! > > That was something I was looking into until all this got started again. > > > > I hope it's just because of original author's inexperience with > openesource > > and the assumption that other people _must_ help him improving the > quality > > of the contributions made, rather than knowing that willingness of other > > people to help comes from the personal experience of > > communication\collaboration\teamwork with the person. > > > > I do not see much reasons to spend time on this thread, instead of i.e > > improving a project CI infrastructure. > > Nothing have changed since the community agreed on the way to proceed, > > except new blaming and finger-pointing, which is unproductive. > > > > Thank you Eran, Jeff, Cos and Tom for your vocal opinions. > > > > -- > > Alex > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 4:30 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > That's a $64K question. Why not indeed? > > > > > > Cos > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 08:11PM, Tom Barber wrote: > > > > I heard about this discussion a while ago and thought it stuff of > > > legends, > > > > turned out I was wrong. > > > > > > > > Personally as cool/useful a patch may be I wouldn't merge something > > that > > > > breaks CI. That said... > > > > > > > > "(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.)" > > > > > > > > If that is the case, why not make sure the PR is up to date, get it > > > merged > > > > into a feature branch, create a 2nd CI job, validate the Jenkins > build > > > in a > > > > cloned project building off the new branch, ascertain how broken it > is > > > and > > > > get it fixed then finally just get the whole lot slapped into master? > > > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:00 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. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- -- Kind regards, Alexander.
