@Elberg, If I were you I would ask myself why isn't the community taking part in this debate? Personally I prefer a team player as a contributor over the best developer. just my 2c Eran
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 at 09:52 Amos B. Elberg <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > >> >
