What is 'first non-beta release' are you referring? On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:39 PM Amos B. Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason we didn't merge in > December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests *in* 208 from functioning. > It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI is broken for the project > anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do that myself. > > The reliability of the code has been proven in the field: People who don't > use R have switched to the version of 208 in my repo because it compiles > reliably when 0.5.6 does not. > > This has been outstanding since August, and it's very hard to understand a > reason - you even participated in a Meetup in September where a variant of > the code in the PR was used as a demonstration of Zeppelin's capabilities > and potential. > > Part of being an Apache project is dealing with significant PRs from > outside the core development team. Addressing these issues for R, and > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project maturity. These were > features on the roadmap which were supposed to be included before the first > non-beta release. > > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion and very valuable opinion. > > > > I completely agree how much R and Authentication (which i believe already > > in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And believe me, I want these > > features in Zeppelin more than anyone. > > > > But at the same time we have diversity of user bases. > > Some people might think supporting general JDBC is more practical and > more > > useful feature, the other can think multi-tenancy is the most important, > > etc, etc. > > > > So, i believe Apache Top Level project is defined by how community works, > > not defined by what feature does the software includes. > > > > Regarding bringing R into main branch, I tried to make pr208 passes the > CI. > > I could able to make it pass 1 test profile, but couldn't make it pass > all > > other test profiles. > > > > I'm suggesting split the contribution into smaller peaces and merge one > by > > one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution of Shiro security > integration > > (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208 into smaller PRs. > > > > Best, > > moon > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav Mazumder < > sourav.mazumde...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> This does make sense Moon. Completely agree with you that features are > not > >> important for becoming a top level project > >> > >> However, in my opinion, from the practical usage standpoint, without > these > >> two features Zeppelin does not look to me a full fledged top level > project. > >> Curious whether there are any technical glitches which are impediment in > >> bringing these features to the main branch. Wondering if any help can > help > >> to get those problems fixed. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Sourav > >> > >>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo Lee <m...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi guys, > >>> > >>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be prerequisites of > >>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those features as a > >>> graduation goal. > >>> > >>> Including specific features could be valid concern for release > >> discussion, > >>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation. > >>> > >>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache way, in > my > >>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a graduation > vote > >>> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution impasse. > >>> > >>> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide and > review > >>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many > contributions > >>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially Jongyoul > >> and > >>> Felix helped a lot) > >>> > >>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be included' to > the > >>> release / roadmap discussion. > >>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions, such as > >>> evaluating > >> > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html, > >>> etc. > >>> > >>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> moon > >>> > >>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was not > >>> withdrawn > >>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some feedback > from > >>> the > >>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And that's > the > >>>> last public discussion about graduation until today. > >>>> > >>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the discussion > >> emails > >>>> that you're referring to. > >>>> > >>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <b...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Eran, > >>>>> > >>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion! > >>>>> > >>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about release schedulle and > >>> let > >>>> us > >>>>> know if that makes sense to you? > >>>>> > >>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here, but > >> after > >>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have > >>> pre-request > >>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal > >>> procedure > >>>> of > >>>>> graduation. > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] > >> > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <eranwit...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite for > >>>> graduation > >>>>>> from day one. > >>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well. > >>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both > >>>>>> Eran > >>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder < > >>>> sourav.mazumde...@gmail.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in > >>>> different > >>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it > >> to > >>>> top > >>>>>>> level. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and > >> Authentication > >>>>>> added > >>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the people > >>> are > >>>>>>> eagerly waiting for. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>> Sourav > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <m...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion. > >>>>>>>> Let's start a vote. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>> moon > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov < > >> b...@apache.org > >>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like > >> to > >>>>>>>> suggest > >>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level > >>>>>> project. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE > >>>>>> thread > >>>>>>>>> here. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> What do you guys think? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> Alex > >> >
