Please describe a reason why do you think CI is potential blocker for 0.5.6.
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 8:14 PM Amos B. Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > >
