Hi folks, I didn't see anyone disagreement merge 208 and/or 702 in this thread and previous thread [1], as they're ready. while they both have technical merits as Jeff summarized really well.
Now i can see 208 finally made some progress on CI [2]. Hope continue the work and make CI green. Also I can see 702 is trying to finishing up and waiting for CI become green. I don't want to merge something that breaks CI. If then, it becomes make very difficult to verify all other contributions. Other contributions are as important as these two. Hope community can understand that. Considering recent progress of both contributions, i expect they'll be ready anytime soon. And then we can finally merge them. About merging 702, 208 contributions, does this sounds clear? If they're both merged, It's possible to improve both RInterpreter by taking each others advantage. Therefore, no reason to worry at this point about which one is better, which one has advantages, which one will merge before the other, etc. Both have pros and cons and both will help Zeppelin thankfully. 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/208#issuecomment-202682652 On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:45 AM enzo <e...@smartinsightsfromdata.com> wrote: > I am looking forward to see 208 merged, *soon* please. From my tests it > seems that this should be the priority. > > I think 702 has merits (but I’ve used it less) and deserves to be merged > too once ready. > > Ultimately after a period of "real road” testing we will be able to > understand what we really need. > > E.g. from past discussions I am not convinced that either PR would, > as-it-is, support fully the needs of a multi-user Zeppelin Server approach > (something similar to RStudio Server Professional to get an idea). A > period of use and gradual evolution (and possibly merge?) will be required. > > The sooner we start the better. > > > > Enzo > e...@smartinsightsfromdata.com > > > > > On 29 Mar 2016, at 07:08, Jeff Steinmetz <jeffrey.steinm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I’m not affiliated to either author nor have any attachment to an > specific outcome - and happy to continue being as objective and unbiased as > possible. > > > > > > I would say they now have different philosophical approaches (as of the > March 23rd merge of datalayer#7 to 702). > > I agree with Amos Elberg that 702 has changed directions a few times. > > > > Re: commits to 702 by Leemoonsoo on March 23 via datalayer#7: > > I found the current state of the 702 PR to be succinct, in terms of > it’s code base, via its use of the SparkR dependency - which is already > baked into spark distribution. > > > > The 702 code base appears to be easier to maintain using this approach > (less code, no rscala source, no BSD licensing additions required, easier > to read). > > 702 packages correctly with -Pbuild-distr as expected - i.e. it works > out of gate from the distribution directory. > > The build profile -Psparkr worked as expected, and the addition of this > profile felt intuitive to me. > > > > > > Myself and a colleague that uses R extensively noticed (as Amos Elberg > reminded us): > > 208 handles passing arrays and other data types between scala & R more > gracefully than 702. > > 208 handles the output of intermediate R calls more gracefully than 702. > > > > Beyond that: > > 208 Requires SPARK_HOME to be set or the interpreter hangs with no > error. It’s been mentioned by the 208 author that the requirement to set > SPARK_HOME is a feature. I think we could revisit this assumption now that > I see how 702 handles this with defaults via a graceful fallback. > > 702 works fine with zero configuration, I.e for those that want to test > locally with no separate spark distribution installed (SPARK_HOME does not > need to be set). > > 702 having just an %r interpreter, and having it as part of the spark > interpreter (same subdirectory) feels like a cleaner approach (this is > arguably a philosophical difference again). > > > > > > It feels like an exhaustive list of `.z.show.googleVis(Motion)` type > calls in 208 could bloom into unnecessary code maintenance overhead and > required additions every time a new chart library is introduced, vs. a more > generic show method. Perhaps a follow on improvement post merge (applies > to both PRs). > > This same chart rendering works in 702 with `print(Motion, tag='chart’)` > which isn’t necessarily better or worse, again, a different philosophical > approach. > > > > They both have merit in different regards. It’s doesn’t feel > appropriate to make a broad statement that "no-one supported 702”. > > If I had a magic wand, it would be a hybrid of the two approaches. > > > > I look forward to continuing the review of each PR individually or both > collaboratively. > > > > Regards, > > Jeff > > > > > > On 3/28/16, 4:13 PM, "Sourav Mazumder" <sourav.mazumde...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> All said and done we had enough discussion on this point for many months > >> now. As far as I know, 208 is the PR which community/people have so far > >> used mostly and successfully (at least me and whoever I introduced to > 208 > >> for SparkR support). I thought it was going to be merged a long time > ago. > >> May be what will make sense is to first integrate the 208. After that, > a > >> new PR can be created on that and if 702 has anything extra then that > >> feature can be added. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Sourav > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Eran Witkon <eranwit...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> @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 <amos.elb...@gmail.com> > 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 <m...@apache.org> 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 <amos.elb...@gmail.com> > >>>> 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. > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> > > > > > >
