Amos, I don't think you or anyone here can define which contributions are more meaningful or which contributions are not.
That's totally irrelevant thing for the release discussion. Thanks, moon On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:12 PM moon soo Lee <m...@apache.org> wrote: > Amos, > > CI is definitely working. Although it's got some flickering test, they're > all > false positive. It doesn't harm any code quality. So even flickering test > are testing the code correctly. And we're addressing them [1]. > > Those false positive tests happens in around 6% of chance according to my > experiment [2], i don't think they're making project unmaintainable at all. > > If you tell me why you think "CI isn’t working.", that would be really > helpful to understand why do you think it's blocker for the release. > > Thanks, > moon > > [1] > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEPPELIN-476?jql=labels%20%3D%20flaky-test%20and%20project%20%3D%20zeppelin > [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/527 > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:08 PM Amos B. Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I’m not the only person who gets a vote, so after I reply to Jongyoul, I >> will not say anything more on this subject. I think my view is pretty >> clear. >> >> I will add that I just reviewed all of those commits. >> >> They are all minor improvements to the UI. Things like whether a >> background gets greyed out when a pop-up appears. Two of them could be >> viewed as fixes for minor UI issues. None of them relates to any stability >> issues in Zeppelin. >> >> For most of them I had trouble spotting whether anything had changed, >> even with the helpful screenshots. >> >> I don’t think any of them, or all of them together, are a reason for a >> release. >> >> From: Corneau Damien <cornead...@gmail.com> >> Reply: dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org < >> dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org> >> Date: December 30, 2015 at 12:51:50 AM >> To: dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org <dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org> >> CC: Jongyoul Lee <jongy...@gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 0.5.6-incubating >> >> I don't think minor releases needs be planned (feature wise), >> its something we should do when we feel the need that we fixed or improved >> something important. >> We even talked at some point of doing some more periodic releases. >> >> I see a lot of good benefits from making a new minor release, especially >> bug fix wise. >> >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/580 >> >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/commit/47eb95aeeefa8925ef5b49487b967f40ad451454 >> >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/commit/f0d3c3f0e3e898b5625a1d3745a701271905c22c >> >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/commit/4a1edd525b31e5c6de41c3598ce921b82b7abeeb >> >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/commit/71c1af84a1c4f285842dfd5c85fc99ffc4bfca26 >> >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/commit/d90e3805bb2d2434bc08672a6227c0afc927f6ae >> >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/commit/986b0adba3a7986a387c0633d15279b6b2f45c95 >> >> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Amos B. Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > A codebase that often changes in ways that break other code is an >> unstable >> > codebase, by definition. >> > >> > I don’t think it will be more stable at runtime, especially since CI >> isn’t >> > working. >> > >> > It definitely won’t be more maintainable. The key problematic code is >> > still in. >> > >> > Other than Spark 1.6 and Ignite, I don’t see any reason at all for a >> 0.5.6 >> > release. (Konstantin was right — it is good for Apache releases to >> > maintain version compatibility with new versions of other Apache >> software. >> > That is Apache projects helping each other.) >> > >> > What feature do you feel justifies a 0.5.6 release? What feature other >> > than 1.6 and Ignite does anyone feel justifies a 0.5.6 release? >> > >> > From: Jongyoul Lee <jongy...@gmail.com> >> > Reply: Jongyoul Lee <jongy...@gmail.com> >> > Date: December 30, 2015 at 12:32:01 AM >> > To: Amos B. Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com> >> > CC: dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org < >> dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org> >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 0.5.6-incubating >> > >> > Amos, >> > >> > I don't think we have a strict plan for making a minor release and we >> have >> > a roadmap for major release. And ignite and Spark 1.6 is not a key >> feature >> > of 0.5.6. Konstantin just wanted to be merged that contribution if that >> > voting is finished until we make a release. And Spark 1.6 is on going. >> As >> > you told, we are an Apache project. 0.5.6 will be stable and >> maintainable. >> > If 0.5.6 has an experimental features, I don't agree to make a release. >> > 0.5.6 will be more stable version of 0.5.5. And of course, the most >> people >> > like more stable version. Isn't it enough? >> > >> > Regards, >> > Jongyoul >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Amos B. Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > My suggestion is that we do a 0.5.6 that just has the bare minimal >> changes >> > necessary for Spark 1.6 and Ignite and nothing else. >> > >> > That way we provide “must have” features while minimizing risk. >> > >> > Other than that, yes: I think we should keep our current release plan >> and >> > not make a release for “nice to have” changes until CI is fixed. >> > >> > The main purpose of making a new minor release should be whether already >> > merged features are meaningful to make a minor release even if any major >> > issues are on going, isn't it? >> > >> > I’m not sure that I understand what you are asking. >> > >> > We have a planned 0.6 release. We just did an unplanned “minor” 0.5.5 >> > release. It feels like only a few weeks ago. I voted for it because it >> > seemed that it would stabilize the codebase and provide a maintainable >> > interim foundation. >> > >> > I do not think any of the features since 0.5.5 are “meaningful” enough >> to >> > justify changing the release plan. Not even close. I think it is rare >> > that any off-roadmap “nice to have” feature would ever be a good reason >> to >> > change a release plan. Especially when our CI “house” is not in order. >> > >> > We’re an Apache project — we need to be stable, maintainable, reliable, >> > predictable. >> > >> > Is there any merged PR that is so important it can’t wait for 0.6? >> > >> > From: Jongyoul Lee <jongy...@gmail.com> >> > Reply: Jongyoul Lee <jongy...@gmail.com> >> > Date: December 29, 2015 at 11:54:35 PM >> > To: Amos B. Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com> >> > CC: dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org < >> dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org> >> > >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 0.5.6-incubating >> > >> > Okay, Amos, >> > >> > Do you propose Zeppelin should not have another release before fix CI >> > issue? I think even though CI has some problems, another minors fixes is >> > meaningful to make a new minor release. Do you agree with that? Or don't >> > you agree that it's enough? The main purpose of making a new minor >> release >> > should be whether already merged features are meaningful to make a minor >> > release even if any major issues are on going, isn't it? >> > >> > Regards, >> > Jongyoul >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Amos B. Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > Hah! >> > >> > I promise you, an hour after a 0.5.6 comes out, I will have emails >> asking >> > me when I will support 0.5.6, even if no-one actually needs any 0.5.6 >> > changes or even knows what they are! >> > >> > I want to be clear though: My primary issue for 0.5.6 is not whether to >> > merge the R interpreter. >> > >> > My issues are I think we need to fix CI in general, and I’m loathe to >> have >> > more releases with that dammed spark-under-zeppelin code, which is the >> root >> > of many other issues. >> > >> > >> > From: Jongyoul Lee <jongy...@gmail.com> >> > Reply: Jongyoul Lee <jongy...@gmail.com> >> > Date: December 29, 2015 at 11:21:00 PM >> > To: Amos B. Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com>, >> > dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org <dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org> >> > >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 0.5.6-incubating >> > >> > Okay, I understand your situation. If you rebased your PR from master, >> you >> > can rebased your PR only once but I also know why you had to do that. I >> > think R is a roadmap for 0.6.0 and you'd better skip rebasing 0.5.6. How >> > about you? >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Amos B. Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > Jongyoul - the reason we have to rebase twice is that the changes in >> > zeppelin-master will break the R interpreter. >> > >> > So I’ll have to rebase once so that I’m based off of 0.5.6 and people >> can >> > use the code. Then rebase again for 0.6.0. >> > >> > Remember, I have a user base I need to support — there are a lot of >> people >> > using the R interpreter now. So its not just a PR where I can ignore it >> > until its ready to merge. >> > >> > The changes have already broken the shiro PR apparently quite often. >> > >> > I made a “release” of the R Interpreter just so I could stop rebasing >> > against Zeppelin master. I spent > 60 hours dealing with this for the >> > changes leading up to 0.5 and 0.5.5. >> > >> > From: Jongyoul Lee <jongy...@gmail.com> >> > Reply: Jongyoul Lee <jongy...@gmail.com> >> > Date: December 29, 2015 at 11:08:36 PM >> > To: Amos B. Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com> >> > >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 0.5.6-incubating >> > >> > I don't know why you should rebased twice. If you can make a PR from >> > current master, almost changes merged without rebasing and if a >> committer >> > asks to rebase your PR, this is because you and another contributors >> > changes the same codes and another contributions is merged before your >> PR. >> > In specific R case, Moon want you to rebase because he tries to fix the >> > testing codes so rebasing your PR will accepts their changes. In most >> case, >> > contributors don't need to rebase their PR before merge because >> committer >> > commit someone's PR by doing cherry-pick. We also felt sorry that you >> were >> > bothered by testing issue and Moon is fighting to fix the testing infra. >> > However all of PRs shouldn't be rebased. >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Amos B. Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com >> > >> > wrote: >> > I think there is no big pain because whole changes to be merged >> > into 0.5.6 will be also merged into 0.6.0. >> > >> > If we make another release now, the PRs will have to be rebased *twice*, >> > once for 0.5.6, and once again for 0.6. >> > >> > Also - since this is now the second e-mail from a committer to do the >> same >> > thing — is there a reason you guys are leaving R out of the agenda for >> the >> > next release? I understood the PR had been accepted and was pending only >> > Moon fixing the testing infrastructure. >> > >> > >> > From: Jongyoul Lee <jongy...@gmail.com> >> > Reply: dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org < >> > dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org> >> > Date: December 29, 2015 at 10:56:33 PM >> > >> > To: dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org < >> dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org> >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 0.5.6-incubating >> > >> > Good idea! >> > >> > 0.5.6 is a minor release thus fixing minor bugs and typos is enough. >> But I >> > also think 0.6.0 should have major changes like supporting spark 1.6 and >> > Shiro security and improving testing infra. And concerning rebasing and >> > committing, I think there is no big pain because whole changes to be >> merged >> > into 0.5.6 will be also merged into 0.6.0. >> > >> > JL >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Amos B. Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > > 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 >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈 >> > http://madeng.net >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈 >> > http://madeng.net >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈 >> > http://madeng.net >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈 >> > http://madeng.net >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈 >> > http://madeng.net >> > >> >
