Awesome Cam, thanks for making all these changes!
-- Joyce On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Cameron Goodale <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Team, > > I have made the changes to JIRA, and I setup a reminder 6 months from now > to take a quick survey of how the new components are working out. > > Thanks for the input on this. > > Side Note: My take on the Component Lead is a New JIRA would be assigned > to the Component Lead if an Assignee isn't selected. If that happens it is > the Component Lead's responsibility to review the issue and either do the > work, or re-assign it to the person most capable to work on the issue. If > someone puts an Assignee on an issue, then the Component Lead (or Project > Lead) will not be assigned. > > I will start another DISCUSS thread in 6 months, so in the meantime please > take the new components for a spin. > > Best Regards, > > > Cameron > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Khudikyan, Shakeh E (398J) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Shakeh > > > > > > > > > > On 8/20/13 11:06 AM, "Cameron Goodale" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >Here is the current state of component names: > > > > > >Current list we won't change: > > >------------------------------------------ > > >build process > > >general > > >metrics > > >visualization > > >website > > > > > >New Components to Add: > > >----------------------------------------- > > >documentation > > >dataset > > > > > > > > >The 4 Contentious Components still being discussed: (with my attempt to > > >please the commenters thus far) > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >------- > > >rcmed -> data sources > > >rcmet -> analysis > > >rcmet ui -> webapp (this would include ui, middleware, etc...) > > >regridding -> data processing (loosely maps to dataset_processor, but > > >would encompass ensemble, temporal and spatial regrid) > > > > > >I also agree with Mike J. that JIRA has functionality to map components > to > > >Component Leads which might be a nice way to help divide up the work, > and > > >I > > >feel there is a tension between component labels that are Core Developer > > >Friendly (map to a module of code - dataset_processor) and New User > > >Friendly (map to a set of functionality they understand - regridding). > We > > >can always have both, but run the risk of too many options. > > > > > >We can also setup the new components in the list, put them into use and > > >revisit this issue in 6 months and see what components are used and > which > > >are not. Call it a "Try and Wait" approach to this. > > > > > > > > > > > >-Cameron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Ramirez, Paul M (398J) < > > >[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> All, > > >> > > >> Seems to me there is a simple high level web-ui, command line, and > API. > > >> Potentially, there is services too but at the moment that would > reflect > > >> the services to support the web UI. There should also be something > that > > >> links issues to build so we can group together updates to any build > > >> scripts, packaging, and distribution to somewhere like pypi. > > >> > > >> I think if we get too specific then if there are shifts we have to go > > >> change our labels again (imo). > > >> > > >> --Paul > > >> > > >> On 8/20/13 7:42 AM, "Michael Joyce" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >> >Chris, > > >> > > > >> >1) Regridding is far too specific with regards to what > > >>dataset_processor > > >> >actually does in my opinion. Visualization vs plotting, I like > > >> >visualization better personally. > > >> > > > >> >2) Again, "pipeline" seems too generic. Even "rcmet" is too generic > in > > >>my > > >> >opinion. I think it's a sign that something is wrong when the vast > > >> >majority > > >> >of our issues are falling under a single component. Too me that says > > >>that > > >> >we need to break that component into smaller, more specific > components. > > >> >(Unless, of course, all the work is actually being done on just one > > >> >specific component). > > >> > > > >> >I think the more important question is, what are we using these > labels > > >> >for? > > >> >Are they for accurately describing issues for committers/contributors > > >>or > > >> >are we trying to make it easy for people making JIRAs to label the > > >> >problem? > > >> >Most people who don't actively participate on the project are > > >>(probably) > > >> >going to label their issue as "general" since they have no idea what > is > > >> >broken. If that's the case, then our components should be useful for > > >>the > > >> >people on the project and thus specific. We should also exploit > > >>component > > >> >leads so that issues can be filtered to people on the project who are > > >>most > > >> >capable of dealing with/delegating the issue. > > >> > > > >> >TLDR: I like specific, descriptive component names over generic > > >> >catch-alls. > > >> >One generic component is good for people making issues that have no > > >>idea > > >> >what is wrong; These can adjusted once someone has looked at the > > >>problem. > > >> >Let's exploit component leads to make all of our lives easier! > > >> > > > >> >Thoughts? > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >-- Joyce > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) < > > >> >[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Cam, I am +1 for this remapping, with the caveats: > > >> >> > > >> >> 1. regridding is much more understood in the community than dataset > > >> >> processor. > > >> >> Same goes for viz (compared to plotting). So dunno on those. > > >> >> > > >> >> 2. I can see your point about rcmet, but don't we have a concept of > > >> >> end-to-end > > >> >> regrid->analysis->viz pipeline? Wouldn't something like pipeline or > > >> >>maybe > > >> >> even > > >> >> analysis make more sense than simply having no component? To me > some > > >> >> component is > > >> >> better than none. > > >> >> > > >> >> Bump it to the top of my list anytime. > > >> >> > > >> >> Cheers, > > >> >> Chris > > >> >> > > >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> >> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > > >> >> Senior Computer Scientist > > >> >> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > > >> >> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > > >> >> Email: [email protected] > > >> >> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > > >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> >> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > > >> >> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > > >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > > >> >> From: Cameron Goodale <[email protected]> > > >> >> Reply-To: "[email protected]" > > >> >> <[email protected]> > > >> >> Date: Monday, August 19, 2013 7:21 PM > > >> >> To: "[email protected]" > > >> >><[email protected]> > > >> >> Subject: Re: JIRA component names > > >> >> > > >> >> >Hey Guys, > > >> >> > > > >> >> >I am going to take a crack and the task of mapping A1 -> B1 that > > >>Chris > > >> >> >mentioned since I have been making JIRAs and wishing for some > other > > >> >> >components in the list. Since the new OCW refactoring introduces > > >>some > > >> >>new > > >> >> >software modules/components i think it makes sense to align JIRA > > >>issues > > >> >> >with each area of the code. This helps map issues to modules in > the > > >> >>code, > > >> >> >items tasks that touch large sweeping parts of the code should go > > >>under > > >> >> >'general' and they need a closer look since they are probably > > >>taking on > > >> >> >too > > >> >> >much work and need sub-tasks or should be broken into smaller > > >>chunks. > > >> >> > > > >> >> >rcmed -> data_source (this would also relate to ESG work or > > >> >>developing an > > >> >> >interface to OpenDAP moving forward) > > >> >> >rcmet -> None (just drop this from the OCW issue tracker. RCMET > is > > >>a > > >> >>JPL > > >> >> >project that is built on OCW) > > >> >> >rcmet ui -> webapp (The 'ui' is basically AngularJS and Bottle. > > >> >>Webapp is > > >> >> >generic enough that we can change to Ember.js and CherryPy if we > > >>like) > > >> >> >regridding -> dataset_processor (map to the module that does this > > >> >> >function) > > >> >> >visualization -> plotting (map to the module that does this > > >>function) > > >> >> >documentation -> NEW Component > > >> >> >dataset -> NEW Component > > >> >> > > > >> >> >A note about rcmet above: > > >> >> > > > >> >> >Here are 14 open issues with rcmet as the component and what I > > >>think a > > >> >> >reasonable mapping could be: > > >> >> > > > >> >> >(general) CLIMATE-261 Consolidate Code that converts a String > into > > >>a > > >> >> >Datetime Object > > >> >> >(general) CLIMATE-259 Create branch to refactor updates to > > >> >>ui/services to > > >> >> >support multiple metrics/plotting > > >> >> >(documentation) CLIMATE-258 Improve Evaluation documentation > > >> >> >(dataset) CLIMATE-219 Add name attribute to Dataset > > >> >> >(metrics) CLIMATE-218 Update metric handling in Evaluation to > > >>coincide > > >> >> >with new Metric definition > > >> >> >(general) CLIMATE-217 Add metrics.py for OCW refactoring > > >> >> >(general) CLIMATE-214 Add evaluation.py to OCW > > >> >> >(dataset_processor) CLIMATE-179 Add support for > > >>Observation/Reference > > >> >> >option when doing Spatial Regridding > > >> >> >(general) CLIMATE-137 OCW refactoring code > > >> >> >(general) CLIMATE-50 RCMET needs to use a logger instead of > prints > > >> >> >(general) CLIMATE-49 Add the 'obs' regrid option into > > >> >> >toolkit.do_data_prep.prep_data function > > >> >> >(REMOVE) CLIMATE-47 precipFlag attribute within the Model class > > >>needs > > >> >>to > > >> >> >be refactored - Not an issue with OCW Dataset Class > > >> >> >(general) CLIMATE-8 CLIMATE-7 SubRegions Support > > >> >> >(metrics) CLIMATE-7 Refactor the metrics.metrics_plots function > > >> >> > > > >> >> >Thanks for allowing me to bump this thread to top of your inbox. > > >> >> > > > >> >> >-Cam > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) < > > >> >> >[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> Perfect > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> On Aug 16, 2013, at 10:49 AM, "Michael Joyce" <[email protected] > > > > >> >>wrote: > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > If people need to catch up on the refactoring that's been > > >>occurring > > >> >> >>they > > >> >> >> > can find the original proposal for refactoring at [1]. The > full > > >> >>thread > > >> >> >> > where this was discussed can be found in the mail archives at > > >>[2]. > > >> >>The > > >> >> >> wiki > > >> >> >> > entry that Mazi made detailing proposed package layouts > > >>(including > > >> >>the > > >> >> >> one > > >> >> >> > we ultimately went with) is available at [3]. > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > To summate: > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > The old code (which was called RCMET) is being refactored into > > >>the > > >> >>ocw > > >> >> >> > package with the intention of making the code base more > > >> >>maintainable > > >> >> >>and > > >> >> >> > the API nice and pretty. > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > Hopefully this is sufficiently verbose. I don't have the time > > >>to go > > >> >> >>into > > >> >> >> > more detail at the moment. If anyone is confused feel free to > > >>ask > > >> >>away > > >> >> >> and > > >> >> >> > I'll try to elaborate later!! > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > Thanks > > >> >> >> > Mike > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > [1]: http://s.apache.org/RKI > > >> >> >> > [2]: > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > > https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-climate-dev/201306.mb > > >> >> >>ox/browser > > >> >> >> > [3]: > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLIMATE/Open+Climate+Workbenc > > >> >> >>h+API+summary > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > -- Joyce > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) < > > >> >> >> > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> Can you detail "the refactoring" so everyone on the list here > > >> >>knows > > >> >> >>what > > >> >> >> >> you are talking about? > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> A few paragraphs would be great, Mike, thanks. > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> Cheers, > > >> >> >> >> Chris > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> >> >> >> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > > >> >> >> >> Senior Computer Scientist > > >> >> >> >> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > > >> >> >> >> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > > >> >> >> >> Email: [email protected] > > >> >> >> >> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > > >> >> >> >> > > >>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> >> >> >> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > > >> >> >> >> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > > >> >> >> >> > > >>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- > > >> >> >> >> From: Michael Joyce <[email protected]> > > >> >> >> >> Reply-To: "[email protected]" > > >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> > > >> >> >> >> Date: Friday, August 16, 2013 10:07 AM > > >> >> >> >> To: dev <[email protected]> > > >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: JIRA component names > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >>> The 3 that caught my eye were: > > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> rcmet > > >> >> >> >>> rcmet ui > > >> >> >> >>> rcmet > > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> As to what they should be instead I don't know. 'rcmet ui' > > >>could > > >> >> >> easily be > > >> >> >> >>> 'ocw ui' without loss of clarity. With the refactoring I > don't > > >> >>know > > >> >> >> what > > >> >> >> >>> we > > >> >> >> >>> want to call 'rcmet' and 'rcmed' doesn't seem like it needs > > >>to be > > >> >> >> there at > > >> >> >> >>> all, so I don't know if we need to think of an alternative. > > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> -- Joyce > > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) < > > >> >> >> >>> [email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>>> Can you be more specific and propose e.g., : > > >> >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >> >>>> A1->B1 > > >> >> >> >>>> A2->B2 > > >> >> >> >>>> .. > > >> >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >> >>>> Where A is the set of "JPL/RCMES centric" names and B is > the > > >>new > > >> >> >> >>>> proposed one? > > >> >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >> >>>> Cheers, > > >> >> >> >>>> Chris > > >> >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >> >>>> > > >> >>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> >> >> >>>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > > >> >> >> >>>> Senior Computer Scientist > > >> >> >> >>>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > > >> >> >> >>>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > > >> >> >> >>>> Email: [email protected] > > >> >> >> >>>> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > > >> >> >> >>>> > > >> >>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> >> >> >>>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > > >> >> >> >>>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 > USA > > >> >> >> >>>> > > >> >>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >> >> >> >>>> From: Michael Joyce <[email protected]> > > >> >> >> >>>> Reply-To: "[email protected]" > > >> >> >> >>>> <[email protected]> > > >> >> >> >>>> Date: Friday, August 16, 2013 9:31 AM > > >> >> >> >>>> To: dev <[email protected]> > > >> >> >> >>>> Subject: JIRA component names > > >> >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >> >>>>> Some of our JIRA components are very JPL/RCMES-centric. > What > > >> >>does > > >> >> >> >>>> everyone > > >> >> >> >>>>> think of switching these over to something more generic? > > >>Ideas > > >> >>on > > >> >> >> >>>> names? > > >> >> >> >>>>> > > >> >> >> >>>>> -- Joyce > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
