So IF the community has decided to *remove* a test to merge in #208, I'm fine with it.
Sorry if I get angry quickly. I still have a weird feeling about this process: 1. remove a test to make CI green 2. merge the PR 3. fix the culprit test (if it's really the cause of CI being broken) Until now, no other PR has received this special treatment. I have a lot of small PRs in the pipeline and every time it breaks CI, I just re-push the PR until it passes green. Sometimes CI is broken not because of test really failing but just because the Travis infrastructure and hardware is under heavy loads during peak hours and fails to start some Spark process (look for keyword "Reactor Summary" when you download the big Travis log file for analysis) The way to solve it is simply to *force push* the PR again to trigger again the build/CI or wait for off-peaks hours and retry. But this issues deserves another thread not to pollute this one. On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Eran Witkon <eranwit...@gmail.com> wrote: > @doanduyhai this is definitely not a fraud and we should be careful before > writing something like this in the mail thread. > The *Temporary * removal of this test is discussed on the thread (this on > or another) and the fact the CI is green is a good progress. > > Since it *seams* as if this class has nothing specifically with the PR, I > would suggest merging this PR ASAP and fixing the test class on another PR > (maybe by the author of this class). > > Eran > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:46 AM DuyHai Doan <doanduy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Wait a minute! > > > > I withdraw my vote for the merge. > > > > After throwing a carefully look at Amos last commit, it looks like a > > fraud... > > > > He just removed completely an existing test class : > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208/commits/14951feb6fd6cfaa2ab3fd9aa6bdbb4c04117724 > > > > Amos, do you have a convincing reason to remove this test? I can see that > > this test exists in the master branch so it doesn't look to be related to > > your #208 code base... > > > > This file exists since late 2015: > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/commits/master/zeppelin-server/src/test/java/org/apache/zeppelin/rest/ZeppelinSparkClusterTest.java > > Le 30 mars 2016 09:33, "Samuel Alexander" <sam...@palmtreeinfotech.com> > a > > écrit : > > > > > +1 to merge without delaying it further. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Sam. > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:01 PM, DuyHai Doan <doanduy...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I have just thrown an eye on PR208 and indeed it passes green so I > > don't > > > > see any reason to delay the merge. > > > > > > > > Hopefully we can close soon this poisoning debate that lasts too long > > > > already > > > > Le 30 mars 2016 07:33, "Amos Elberg" <amos.elb...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > > > > > > > Alex - there are no technical things blocking 208. > > > > > > > > > > You posted a message on 208 that Tom's proposal was not technically > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > > > Do we have to get the community to vote on this *again*? > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Alexander Bezzubov < > > > > abezzu...@nflabs.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
