The CI issue is not a problem just with the R Interpreter. I’ve been following the PR discussions closely and many PRs have been failing CI.
PRs have been merged even though they failed CI. In addition, because CI has not been reliable, CI is not testing as much as we would like. So even a passing CI is not covering the range of configurations that we would want it to for a release. And we don’t understand *why* CI is failing in many of these cases. Which means we don’t really understand what CI is doing. This means that a release would not be able to meet *the project’s own standards* for testability. To me that is reason enough. But also — a release takes a LOT of effort from everyone, especially the PMC. PMC time is valuable and limited. I don’t see anything in the PRs after 0.5.5 that would make another release a priority right now. We just made a release. Other things that will take longer to be addressed if we devote time to a release include R, but also include CI, shiro, multi-tenancy, removing the spark-under-zeppelin code… All of those things seem more important and a higher priority than the PRs currently merged in master, which are not major. Fixing CI and spark-under-zeppelin both seem to be the highest priority. That will make the whole project more maintainable and the whole PR and release process faster and smoother for everyone. So again - if we need to support Spark 1.6 and Ignite, it would be simpler and faster to make a 0.5.6 branch that is 0.5.5 plus *only* the minimal code for Spark 1.6 and Ignite. From: moon soo Lee <m...@apache.org> Reply: dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org <dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org> Date: December 29, 2015 at 11:16:09 PM To: dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org <dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 0.5.6-incubating 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > >
