If Tom's proposal is off the table -- which seems to be what Alex said in the discussion on 208 -- then what we're left with is just merge it.
That is what quite a few people in this thread wanted to do. It's *also* what people in the *last* thread wanted to do. I will continue to ignore the nasty personal comments. On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <b...@apache.org> wrote: > It's even $128K question, as indeed, there is no reason not to! > That was something I was looking into until all this got started again. > > I hope it's just because of original author's inexperience with openesource > and the assumption that other people _must_ help him improving the quality > of the contributions made, rather than knowing that willingness of other > people to help comes from the personal experience of > communication\collaboration\teamwork with the person. > > I do not see much reasons to spend time on this thread, instead of i.e > improving a project CI infrastructure. > Nothing have changed since the community agreed on the way to proceed, > except new blaming and finger-pointing, which is unproductive. > > Thank you Eran, Jeff, Cos and Tom for your vocal opinions. > > -- > Alex > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 4:30 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > That's a $64K question. Why not indeed? > > > > Cos > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 08:11PM, Tom Barber wrote: > > > I heard about this discussion a while ago and thought it stuff of > > legends, > > > turned out I was wrong. > > > > > > Personally as cool/useful a patch may be I wouldn't merge something > that > > > breaks CI. That said... > > > > > > "(If Moon believes there's a real CI issue here, I have no doubt that > it > > > will be solved an hour after merge --- as Moon undertook to do back in > > > December.)" > > > > > > If that is the case, why not make sure the PR is up to date, get it > > merged > > > into a feature branch, create a 2nd CI job, validate the Jenkins build > > in a > > > cloned project building off the new branch, ascertain how broken it is > > and > > > get it fixed then finally just get the whole lot slapped into master? > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Amos B. Elberg <amos.elb...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Moon --- People disagree with you. Rather than keep going > > back-and-forth > > > > about it, I started this discussion to clear up any question about > the > > > > sense of the community. > > > > > > > > This is the apache way. You have said many times, "community before > > code." > > > > > > > > How many more people do you need to hear from? How many more > > discussion > > > > threads saying the same thing do you need to see? > > > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 2016, at 2:50 PM, moon soo Lee <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Answers inline. > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:08 AM Amos Elberg < > amos.elb...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Kos & Moon -- > > > > >> > > > > >> The gist of this thread, is that people disagree with what Moon > > has > > > > said > > > > >> regarding code quality, whether 208 breaks CI (and if so, why), > and > > > > whether > > > > >> its appropriate to merge 702, as Moon has proposed. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Like Kos mentioned, please do not impose your personal desires on > the > > > > > others. You don't need to try define people agree on something or > > > > disagree > > > > > on something. > > > > > > > > > > People have different opinions. Just let people express their > opinion > > > > > themselves. > > > > > > > > > > Can you do that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Since this saga started, we've had 5 threads to get the sense of > > the > > > > >> community on what to do. All of those came out the same way. > More > > > > than a > > > > >> dozen people have asked for the same thing. > > > > >> > > > > > Isn't it time to just get this done so we can all move on? > > > > >> > > > > >> (If Moon believes there's a real CI issue here, I have no doubt > > that it > > > > >> will be solved an hour after merge --- as Moon undertook to do > back > > in > > > > >> December.) > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > I have no good technical reason to merge single PR that does not > > pass CI > > > > > and not merge all other PR that also does not pass CI. > > > > > > > > > > As i explained in previous email, it's more like problem of policy. > > If > > > > you > > > > > have good technical reason to change the policy, please start a > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > moon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:53 PM, moon soo Lee <m...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Hi, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Regarding CI test about 208, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Zeppelin have several profiles for CI test. Each profile tests > > Zeppelin > > > > >>> with different Spark Version. Also it different profiles > different > > > > level > > > > >> of > > > > >>> tests (integration test using selenium). > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Current status of 208 in CI test is, passing single profile, > fails > > all > > > > >>> other profiles. Which is exactly the same status that i have > > helped 208 > > > > >> few > > > > >>> months ago by the way. see. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-173423103 > > > > >>> > > > > >>> 208 has some code interacts with Spark. And 7 CI profile out of 8 > > are > > > > for > > > > >>> test code against various version of Spark. While Zeppelin used > to > > > > >> supports > > > > >>> multiple version of Spark, from range of 1.1 ~ 1.6. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> SparkInterpreter (scala) > > > > >>> PySparkInterpreter (python) > > > > >>> SqlInterpreter (spark sql) > > > > >>> > > > > >>> supports all versions of spark in the profile (pyspark supports > > from > > > > >> 1.2). > > > > >>> I think it's very strait forward to expect the same quality for R > > > > >>> interpreter. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I can suggest two possible way, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> - Keep working on make all profile of CI green. While 208 already > > > > passes > > > > >>> one profile and test in all other profiles are the same but only > > > > against > > > > >>> different spark version, it won't be that difficult to make it > > pass all > > > > >>> other profile. > > > > >>> - Or activate 208 only for spark 1.6 and mark/document which is > > minimum > > > > >>> version requirement of spark. Like Pyspark interpreter did > > (requires > > > > >> spark > > > > >>> 1.2 or newer). > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Regarding code merge policy, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Zeppelin community had been make sure CI pass before merge in to > > > > master, > > > > >>> since it's beginning, until now. That's i believe another > consensus > > > > that > > > > >> we > > > > >>> believed we have in the community. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> That's only reason keep spoken why 208 is not merged for last 4 > > months. > > > > >>> And only reason for all other PR forced to make CI green before > it > > > > get's > > > > >>> merged. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Personally i think not breaking master branch is valuable while > > that > > > > >> makes > > > > >>> any contributor start contribution safely at any point from > master > > > > >> branch. > > > > >>> And users who want to try latest community work can safely test > > > > Zeppelin > > > > >>> from master branch. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> But if anyone think Zeppelin community need to discuss about it, > > please > > > > >>> start a discussion. I'm happy to see discussion happens. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Thanks, > > > > >>> moon > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:31 AM Konstantin Boudnik < > c...@apache.org > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> hmm.... that's getting weird again. So, far I failed to see: > > > > >>>> - CI issues being addressed. If the consensus of the community > to > > > > >> merge > > > > >>> in > > > > >>>> something, break the CI and collect the technical debts - > that's > > > > >> fine > > > > >>>> and > > > > >>>> that's your choice (I am not here to pass the judgement on the > > > > >> quality > > > > >>>> of > > > > >>>> the code) > > > > >>>> - a consensus to keep anyone away from _anything_ in the project > > > > >>> matters. > > > > >>>> Please do not impose your personal desires on the others. > While > > > > >> you're > > > > >>>> entitled to express them (free speech and all that), no one is > > > > >>> entitled > > > > >>>> to > > > > >>>> listen, less oblige by it (based on the same principles of > > > > >> individual > > > > >>>> rights). > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> So, please keep it civil and find a way to improve the code, if > > > > needed, > > > > >>>> and get > > > > >>>> it in once the committers are satisfied with its quality. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Cos > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:51AM, Amos B. Elberg wrote: > > > > >>>>> Moon - no. That is the opposite of what people are saying. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I started this thread because I feel that you are disregarding > > the > > > > >>>> consensus > > > > >>>>> of the community. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> The thread asks for two things - 208 to be merged without > further > > > > >>> delay, > > > > >>>> and > > > > >>>>> for you to stay out of the issue of R interpreters entirely. > > 702 can > > > > >>> be > > > > >>>>> addressed after 208 is merged. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> How many more people do you need to hear from? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> On Mar 29, 2016, at 5:40 AM, moon soo Lee <m...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> 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. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
