Re: The state of releases

2019-03-18 Thread David Smith
Thanks Max! Out of curiosity, has that release SIP-12 been approved yet? I have some thoughts but if it is already a done deal I'll wait until another time. :-) On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 9:53 PM Maxime Beauchemin < maximebeauche...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I wanted to send an email explainin

Re: The state of releases

2019-03-19 Thread David Smith
gt; cherry-pick fixes and resolve conflicts if any. I'm hoping we can build > > tooling to help with all this. Hugh started something a while back, but > > there's lots to be done still in that area. > > > > Max > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:39 PM Maxime Beauc

Re: The state of releases

2019-03-19 Thread David Smith
One more note: to be semver compliant, the version string "0.32.0rc1" should be changed to "0.32.0-rc1" (see rule #9 at https://semver.org) On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 9:26 PM David Smith wrote: > I'm new to this project, so I apologize if this has been discussed

Re: The state of releases

2019-03-20 Thread David Smith
Fair, and you are correct, pypi explicitly forbids that representation, but I think there are separable concerns here: 1) what is the Superset version? 2) how is that version represented in published artifacts across potentially multiple consuming tech stacks? I realize opinions may vary, but for

Re: The state of releases

2019-03-22 Thread David Smith
onto a branch, but the consistency in > tagging PRs with fix, feature, docs seemed useful. I don't think we've > heavily discussed other workflows. Sounds good to get suggestions for > improvement on SIP-12. > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 9:27 PM David Smith > wrote: > > &

Re: Protecting "release--.*" branches

2019-03-23 Thread David Smith
I think the discussion was around what our ability was to configure this, but I think actually submitting the request would be "downstream" of documenting and voting on a release process and branch mechanics. Should we hold off on this? I think details need to be hammered out and voted on. An exa

Re: Protecting "release--.*" branches

2019-03-24 Thread David Smith
in SIP-12 > <https://github.com/apache/incubator-superset/issues/6131>. The suggestion > was either using '/' or '--' as the delimiter between a prefix and suffix. > > -John > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 9:41 AM David Smith > wrote: > > > I think

Re: The state of releases

2019-03-26 Thread David Smith
ble option for Apache > “vote-before-release” protocol, we need to come up with some solutions. > > > Thank you again for your initiation. We are happy to have you on board and > hope your experience can help all of us make the releases better. > > > Best regards, > &

Re: The state of releases

2019-03-27 Thread David Smith
Has anyone done a first pass on the licenses, checking to see if there are any obvious problems before going to lawyers with edge cases? If not, I can have a look at that. Dave On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:08 PM Ville Brofeldt wrote: > If it helps I can walk through the the releasing steps and gi

Re: [DISCUSS] Best place for questions / answers

2019-04-03 Thread David Smith
+1 for Stackoverflow. I think Discourse, Discord, Slack, etc all have the same discoverability problem. On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 3:50 PM Stephanie Rivera wrote: > +1 stack overflow > > Cheers, > > Stephanie Rivera > sent from my mobile > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2019, 4:18 PM Jeff Feng > wrote: > > > ++

Re: Latest release of Superset(0.31.0rc18) is failing for dependency croniter==0.3.26

2019-04-15 Thread David Smith
The developer of that project accidentally deleted that version. If you update the dependency to 0.3.29 it should unblock you. On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 1:28 PM abhishek sharma wrote: > Hi, > > I am trying to build the Docker image of Superset for the latest release > i.e. *0.31.0rc18 *and it is f

Re: [VOTE] Release Superset 0.31.0 based on Superset 0.31.0 RC18

2019-04-16 Thread David Smith
What tests are being performed before releasing? To be blunt: we shouldn't be able to get to a "release" vote without validating that the code runs, we need to make the process account for robust testing. On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 11:11 AM Bolke de Bruin wrote: > Have to change to -1, non-binding

Re: [VOTE] Release Superset 0.31.0 based on Superset 0.31.0 RC18

2019-04-16 Thread David Smith
release candidate was created. That’s a race condition that is > kind of unsolvable ;-). > > Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad > > > Op 16 apr. 2019 om 20:19 heeft David Smith het > volgende geschreven: > > > > What tests are being performed before releasing? To be blunt

Re: Commercial implementation of superset

2019-09-12 Thread David Smith
Hi Niraj, With respect, this question is a pretty vague. Superset provides dashboarding capabilities, and "rich UX" can mean a lot of things. What precisely are you looking for that is not in Superset currently? Let us know and maybe you'll get some more feedback. :-) Dave On Thu, Sep 12, 2019

Re: [DISCUSS] Simplify the SIP voting process

2019-12-20 Thread David Smith
I think it would be vastly superior in terms of user-experience. I think the pushback would possibly be that email produces an immutable record of the vote and any conversation around it, whereas github votes can be changed after the fact, comments may be edited, etc. It depends on what one is opt

Re: [DISCUSS] Simplify the SIP voting process

2019-12-20 Thread David Smith
send emails as needed > * do accounting based on who's a PMC / committer / contributor > (binding/non-binding). Hopefully Whimsy has some REST API we can hit to get > list of Github handles of committers / PMCs > > Max > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 2:07 PM David Smith > wrote:

Re: [VOTE] [SIP-39] Global Async Query Support

2020-03-10 Thread David Smith
+1 non-binding On Tue, Mar 10, 2020, 5:53 PM Chris Williams wrote: > +1 > > Chris > > Data Visualization > San Francisco > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 5:31 PM Maxime Beauchemin < > maximebeauche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 4:09 PM William Barrett wrot