I agree with @ahyoungryu93 @anthonycorbacho
Features can be upgraded constantly in time manner but project needs to be go
forward for publicity.
So ++1
-----Original Message-----
From: "Ahyoung Ryu"<ahyoungry...@gmail.com>
To:
"dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org"<dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org>;
Cc:
Sent: 2016-02-04 (목) 23:28:29
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's time to graduate and step
forward.
So, ++1 !
2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<anthonycorba...@apache.org>님이 작성한 메시지:
> Hi,
>
> I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a vote.
> unlike release, it doesnt require any specific features (For specific
> feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a requirement for the first release
> as TLP),
> so for me its a big +1.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> victor.gar...@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > 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
> <javascript:;>>:
> >
> > > 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
> <javascript:;>> 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
> <javascript:;>>
> > > 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
> <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>>
> > > > >> 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
> <javascript:;>>
> > > 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 <javascript:;>>
> > > > >>>> 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 <javascript:;>>
> > > > >>> 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
> <javascript:;>>
> > > > >>> 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
<javascript:;>>
> > > > >>>>>>> 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 <javascript:;>>
> > > > >>>> 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 <javascript:;>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> 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 <javascript:;> <
> marta.ta...@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > * | victormanuel.garcia.marti...@bbva.com
> <javascript:;>
> > <marta.ta...@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> >
>
