I don’t think R interpreter is a blocker for 0.5.6.

I think *CI* is a potential blocker for 0.5.6.  


From: moon soo Lee <m...@apache.org>
Reply: dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org <dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org>
Date: December 29, 2015 at 11:07:49 PM
To: dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org <dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org>
Subject:  Re: [DISCUSS] Release 0.5.6-incubating  

To make it more clear,  

I was thinking release 0.5.6-incubating from current master branch, like we  
did for 0.5.5-incubating release. Also including Spark 1.6 support.  


Amos,  
I'm trying to make your R interpreter PR pass CI which is unsuccessful for  
now. If it can be merged by the time we make a branch for 0.5.6-incubating  
release, it will be included in the release. Otherwise there is no reason  
to be R interpreter PR be a blocker for 0.5.6-incubating release while  
0.5.6-incubating is not the last release from Zeppelin project.  

Thanks,  
moon  

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 8:00 PM Chae-Sung Lim <estai...@gmail.com> wrote:  

> Oh, I'm sorry.  
> Thank you. Good point.  
>  
> I am in favor for the release of the 0.5.6-incubating.  
>  
> 2015-12-29 19:56 GMT-08:00 Amos B. Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com>:  
>  
> > Chae-Sung — What Moon has proposed is a 0.5.6 release *without* Shiro.  
> >  
> > From: Chae-Sung Lim <estai...@gmail.com> <estai...@gmail.com>  
> > Reply: dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org  
> > <dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org> <dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org>  
> > Date: December 29, 2015 at 10:53:43 PM  
> >  
> > To: dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org <dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org  
> >  
> > <dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org>  
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 0.5.6-incubating  
> >  
> > It is a good idea.  
> > I think that security is an enhanced version of the release is required  
> by  
> > the current Zeppelin.  
> > (Shiro)  
> >  
> > 2015-12-29 19:32 GMT-08:00 Amos B. Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com>:  
> >  
> > > I don’t want to come off as the naysayer here, but I think the effort  
> > that  
> > > would go into a release would be better spent on the testing  
> > infrastructure  
> > > and outstanding PRs.  
> > >  
> > > If we feel we need a release for 1.6 and Ignite, I suggest we make a  
> > > release that *only* includes the absolute minimal changes required to  
> do  
> > > that.  
> > >  
> > > There was one PR for 1.6 support that didn’t really work and is going  
> to  
> > > break anything built against the current codebase. Except for a change  
> > in  
> > > the name of one method called by one class, all of the changes seem to  
> > > involve support for spark-under-zeppelin, which is something we want to  
> > > take out.  
> > >  
> > > We also don’t currently have a working testing framework. A lot of PRs  
> > > have been committed under the “ignore travis its broken” theory. I’m  
> > > loathe to make a release that hasn’t really been tested, and it doesn’t  
> > > seem we’re in a position to do that.  
> > >  
> > > While there have been a lot of merged PRs, I don’t think any of them  
> are  
> > > on-roadmap. They mostly seem to be very minor, like fixing typos and  
> > > changing which text box gets highlighted. Those are important things,  
> of  
> > > course, but not major enough to justify the effort involved in a  
> > release.  
> > >  
> > > Another release will not make it easier to integrate the larger PRs. It  
> > > will have the opposite effect. Developers will have to rebase against  
> > > whatever gets broken by 1.6 and other changes.  
> > >  
> > > I suggest we wait to do a significant release until we can take out the  
> > > legacy spark-under-zeppelin code that has caused so many issues, have a  
> > > working testing framework, and integrate the major outstanding PRs.  
> > >  
> > > So, again, if we want a release, I suggest we include the absolute  
> > minimum  
> > > changes necessary for 1.6 and Ignite, and perhaps call it an interim or  
> > > maintenance release.  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > From: Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org>  
> > > Reply: dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org <  
> > > dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org>, dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org  
> <  
> > > dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org>  
> > > Date: December 29, 2015 at 10:05:36 PM  
> > > To: dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org <  
> dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org>  
> >  
> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 0.5.6-incubating  
> > >  
> > > Good idea! BTW, Apache Ignite is voting right now on 1.5.0.final -  
> would  
> > > make  
> > > sense to add this to the latest release of Zeppelin. I will open a JIRA  
> > and  
> > > supply a patch for it, if there's no objections.  
> > >  
> > > Cos  
> > >  
> > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 03:00AM, moon soo Lee wrote:  
> > > > Hi folks,  
> > > >  
> > > > How about we make release 0.5.6-incubating?  
> > > >  
> > > > Since last release, more than 100 pull requests are merged and more  
> > than  
> > > 80  
> > > > issues are resolved.  
> > > >  
> > > > It's including new interpreters, a lot of new features and  
> improvement  
> > on  
> > > > GUI with much improved stability thanks to lots of bug fixes.  
> > > >  
> > > > Also it's great time to have a Zeppelin release that support Spark  
> 1.6  
> > (  
> > > > ZEPPELIN-395), which about to be released.  
> > > >  
> > > > Once we branch for 0.5.6-incubating release, it's more safe to make  
> > large  
> > > > code base change such as "Added Shiro security" (  
> > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/53) and many other  
> > > > planned feature in 0.6.0 roadmap, that will require lots of internal  
> > API  
> > > > updates.  
> > > >  
> > > > What do you think?  
> > > >  
> > > > Thanks,  
> > > > moon  
> > >  
> >  
> >  
>  

Reply via email to