I have filled out all checklists and commented as much as i can. Please review https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Zeppelin+Project+Maturity+Model .
Did i filled out correctly? Any feedback would be really appreciated. Thanks, moon On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:03 AM moon soo Lee <m...@apache.org> wrote: > I have created > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Zeppelin+Project+Maturity+Model > and > trying to fill out Apache Maturity Model checklist. > > Let me notify this thread when everything is filled out. > And any comment, help would be appreciated. > > Thanks, > moon > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: > >> In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were to fill out the >> Apache Maturity Model >> checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion. >> >> Thanks, >> Roman. >> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <mina...@apache.org> wrote: >> > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for graduation. >> > >> > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more diverse. Number of >> > contributors has increased more than 7 times and three new committers >> are >> > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling project. And release, vote >> > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far. >> > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big synergy with other >> > apache projects by providing different back-end interpreters(ex spark, >> > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc) >> > >> > so +1 for graduation. >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha < >> madhukaudan...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> +1 for graduation >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <doanduy...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about the Apache >> project >> >> > maturity model. ( >> >> > >> >> >> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html >> ) >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing secure >> software >> >> > >> >> > It's related to security and I know that there is a commit on Shiro >> >> > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him by the way). There is >> >> also >> >> > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about Kerberos ( >> >> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/640). Don't know >> if >> >> > there >> >> > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on the chapter of >> security, >> >> all >> >> > the works are being done and are on good way. >> >> > >> >> > Under the Community topic, I think all the points are covered (for >> >> example, >> >> > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly documented in >> >> CONTRIBUTING.md) >> >> > as well as consensus (point CO60). >> >> > >> >> > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every discussion related to >> release >> >> > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the mailing list. >> >> > >> >> > As far as I see, all the points are covered. >> >> > >> >> > Now my personal opinion as a community member is that it's high >> time for >> >> > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel comfortable >> advising >> >> > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production because of lack of >> >> security >> >> > but since security support (at least for authentication) is in the >> trunk >> >> > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see any blocker anymore. >> >> > >> >> > So a big +1 for me >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <ahyoungry...@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > 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/> >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Cheers, >> >> Madhuka Udantha >> >> http://madhukaudantha.blogspot.com >> >> >> >
