Moon - I opened this discussion so it could take place with the community as a whole, not just you.
Suffice it to say, I disagree with every one of the technical claims you've just made, and I don't trust your intent. Let the community process happen. > On Mar 28, 2016, at 2:47 AM, moon soo Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Simply put, > > - 702 and/or 208 will can merged as they're ready. [1] > - 208 will not be merged while it does not pass CI. If you think code in > 208 is not a problem but CI itself or other part of Zeppelin is problem, > then that particular problem be fixed before merge 208. > - 702 has proper integration test [2] > > I'm not sure why you're so hard at devaluating 702. > 702 is not something you need to beat and win. 702 is something you need to > help / learn / collaborate. > > Will you able to show your ability to collaborate with other community > members? > > Thanks, > moon > > [1] > http://apache-zeppelin-incubating-dev-mailing-list.75694.x6.nabble.com/R-interpreter-in-Zeppelin-further-steps-tp6967.html > [2] > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/702/files#diff-64a9440e811c5fba6ac1b61157fa6912R87 > > >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 7:11 PM Amos Elberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I am saddened to have to start this thread *again*. While I thought we had >> reached consensus on this, several times over, apparently some people >> disagree. I hope this will be the last time. >> >> With this thread, I am asking the community to reach consensus (1) That 208 >> should be merged this week, without further delay; and (2) That Moon Lee >> Soo and Felix Cheung take no further part in the discussions of 208 and >> 702. >> >> This PR has been pending since August. It has been stalled that entire time >> for no technical reason. >> >> We reached agreement to merge 208 in November, again in December, and again >> in February -- when Moon agreed to stay out of the issue. At that point, >> Alex, I, and others, began working on it, and appeared to be making >> substantial progress. >> >> And then Alex just stopped. Instead, he commenced the thread saying that a >> consensus had to be reached on 208 and 702. Until that point, essentially >> no-one had paid attention to 702. In the discussion that followed, we >> reached a consensus to merge 208 as soon as possible. After the thread had >> died, Alex asked if anyone had additional comments, and Moon popped-in to >> insist that both PRs be merged. Again, no-one supported 702. At all. >> >> Each time I said "we had a consensus before, does anyone want to change >> it," Alex or Moon steered the discussion away. The final vote was not to >> merge 702 or merge "both" -- it was to treat them as normal PRs. (Although >> one person did want both merged simultaneously.) That would mean >> completing 208 on its merits and then evaluating 702. >> >> At the time, I objected to the discussion, because I thought the whole >> thing was a contrived excuse for Moon to reject 208 by pushing 702. That >> is exactly what he is now seeking to do. >> >> *Status of 208 & 702* >> >> PR 208 has been feature-complete and testable since early September. It >> has been adopted by more than 1000 users, who I have been supporting for >> more than six months. The code has not undergone any major changes since >> September. There are no known bugs, and no outstanding feature requests >> that can be satisfied without major changes to the Zeppelin architecture. >> >> 208 does *not* fail CI. 208 includes extensive unit tests of the R-Spark >> integration because this turned out to get broken by changes in Zeppelin >> often. Because CI is unable at present to provide a consistent >> environment, 208's *OWN UNIT TESTS*, which pass when run on an ordinary >> machine, fail when run on CI. >> >> 208 does need a push for compatibility with a recently adopted PR -- that >> is work I've essentially completed, but have not pushed. >> >> PR 702 is a re-design based on 208 -- not just architecture, but right down >> to the choice of demo images, which were taken from 208's documentation. >> In fact, 702 has had been re-engineered several times to more closely >> conform to 208's architecture and feature set. But 702 still remains >> feature-incomplete -- it cannot handle the range of visualizations, R >> classes, etc., that 208 can. It is not stable code, and shows no signs of >> stabilizing any time soon. >> >> No-one has adopted 702. It has changed radically, fundamentally, at least >> 4 times over the past two months since it was submitted. One of those >> changes was only days ago. >> >> 702 also has no proper tests, which is the excuse for not merging 208. 702 >> has things labelled "tests," but they don't actually attempt to connect to >> R or Spark, which are the things that break and which therefore need >> testing. >> >> *** >> >> I would like credit for my own work and design. I think I have more than >> earned that. >>
