Hi guys, In my opinion we can graduate from the incubator. I think we all well controlled procedures, regardless of new features that also will be improved or adding . For example we need to greatly improve the documentation, but i since is not necesary for graduation.
+1 for graduation congrats for the work...!!! 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov <b...@apache.org>: > Jakob, > > thank you for pointing this out, it is exactly as you describe (there were > 3 releases since joining the incubator) > > If we could keep this thread focused on graduation and get more oppinions > from other participants - that would awesome! > > Its great to see people volonteering to help with particular features for > the next release here, but please feel free to fork the thread for further > discussion on technical details. > > -- > Alex > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <jgho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hey all- > > A data point and observation from an ASF Member and Incubator PMC > > Member... > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for graduation is a function of > > community development and adherence to the Apache Way, rather any > > specific feature or tech milestones. Since entering Incubator, > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases, has finished the > > incubation checklist > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html), has added new > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a good position to graduate > > from my perspective. > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be handled in a speedy matter, > > but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement to that - just some work > > left to be done in getting them in. > > > > -Jakob > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, 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 > > >>> > > > -- *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez* *Software Engeenier * *+34 672104297 | victor.gar...@beeva.com <marta.ta...@beeva.com>* * | victormanuel.garcia.marti...@bbva.com <marta.ta...@bbva.com>* <http://www.beeva.com/>
