Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1603
@Leemoonsoo do you think it's worth re-basing on latest master?
Tried `mvn clean package -pl \!zeppelin-distribution` on this branch again,
got:
```
Results :
Tests
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1620
@wang28103 looks like PR to the wrong destination
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1668
Thank you - it's a great effort, a bit long to review so it took a while
and have diverged from master.
@1ambda could you rebase and also make sure it does not affect automation
like https
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1632
@agoodm thank you, looks great! There has been some changes in
`.travis.yaml`, could you please rebase?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1639
@felizbear great!
From my experience, if you, as PR author, elaborate on the CI failure, in
case of any, it usually speeds merging things up.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1638
Looks great to me, except for code style noted above.
Thank you @1ambda for tests improvements, would be happy to merge as soon
as the style issue addressed, if there is no further discussion
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1168
@jongyoul how do you think, could you interactively rebase this branch to
have only `./_tools/*` changes? Or is it better to start a JIRA issue and close
this guy?
@1ambda do you know any
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1639
Thank you @1ambda !
@felizbear as soon as #1659 with CI improvements was merged, let's rebase
and see if we can merge this guy
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1659
@asanjar node version is bumped to 6.x TLS one, please let us know if that
works for you you on Power arch.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1666
ð Looks good to me, merging if there is no further discussion
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1666
Indeed, if you could check #1659 - AFAIK it does all the same, only the
node version is different there.
How about we merge this guy as it does not bring major changes and then
rebase #1659
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1659
Thanks for improving CI @1ambda
Looks great to me,
will be happy to merege asap, right after
[zeppelin-web/README.md](https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/zeppelin-web
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1659
@1ambda great effort!
As mentioned in #1639 - could you please re-purpose (interactive rebase,
basically) this PR to contain only CI improvements?
One question on Node version update
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1639
@1ambda great job!
Could you please re-purpose (interactive rebase, basically) #1639 to
contain only CI improvements, so it does not include anything from this PR?
Then we can
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1639
Experimenting with heap size sounds good, if that is the reason CI fails.
But it would be much easier to judge, if somebody could summarize current
CI failure here.
On the frontend build
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1639
Thank you for good effort and contribution @felizbear !
Please, expect that usually reviews do take some time.
One thing that @1ambda brought that would be nice to understand better
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1594
Looks great to me,
merging to master if there is no further discussion
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1628
Tested with and without `matplotlib` - both cases work fine!
Also
```
%python
a = 'a'
print "{}".format(a)
```
works as expected as well!
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1628
Will test right now and post back
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1626
Thank you for the prompt update @agoodm
CI failure on Selenium test profile seem un-related:
```
Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 129.268 sec
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1534
@agoodm sorry for digging this out, but I have just realized that this PR
changes only [Python
`PyZeppelinContext`](https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/python/src/main/resources
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1598
Great work @1ambda ! Do you know if there are any ETA for Elasticsearch 5.1?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1618
Looks like CI is stalled during PySpark execution somehow..
```
16/11/09 09:46:13 INFO PySparkInterpreter: File
/tmp/zeppelin_pyspark-7835708002435081304.py created
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/989
@onkarshedge thank you for the great work!
How do you think, how hard it would be to rebase it on latest master?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1194
I guess we better close this guy, or is it still WIP?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1231
@onkarshedge would you be willing to address the comments on the code style
and rebase it?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/932
@echarles I'm terribly sorry for for such a huge communication delay in my
side :\
Would you be willing to re-base it on the latest master so we could merge
it?
---
If your project is set
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1339
Guys, what great work here, simplifying the build!
A quick question @AhyoungRyu as it's kind of a big change, and I'm sorry if
that was explained before, but could you please recap
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1376
@lresende sorry for huge communication delay :\
It's great improvement on ability to debug failures, merging to master
ASAP, if there is no further discussion.
---
If your project is set
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1378
Sorry for massive communication delay :\
Looks awesome to me, merging to master, if there is no further discussion!
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1391
@zjffdu test plan sounds great.
My only concern was - may we can find a better place for this state, rather
than `static` ? Move it somewhere, where if does not require to be static
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1471
@ravwojdyla
> Test/build should happen as part of standard build. Is it fine?
Yes, sounds fantastic, thank you for pointing it out.
Looks great to me, shall we me
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1594
What should be the next steps here @1ambda?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1605
Looks great to me, thank you @minahlee for cleaning up in order to avoiding
user confusion!
ð¯ for having a test
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1610
ð Let's merge
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1534
Looks great to me, ð for extra tests. Let's merge
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/928
Sorry for delay, @rawkintrevo !
Thank you for kind reminder on this great stuff. I want to mention this
work on ApacheCon, so hope we can merge this asap :)
I tied it and got
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1591
Looks great to me, thank you for fix and prompt response!
Let's merge after CI is green, if there is no further discussions.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1594
Websequence are awesome, thank you @1ambda for contributing this
simplification of MD interpreter.
Looks good to me, modulo few minor issues, commented above.
As soon as CI is green
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1589
ð for docs in same PR.
On CI, I think that's relativly minor and if that's too complicated to
configure - we can can opt out for manual test run+instruction in docs.
Double
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1590
Got it! Thank you for kind explanation.
CI failure looks not relevant for the change set.
Looks great to me, merging to master if there is no further discussion.
---
If your project
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1589
Thank you for contribution!
There are few things need to be taken care here:
1. make sure the code adhere [project
styleguide](https://zeppelin.apache.org/contribution/contributions.html
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1586
Thank you @khalidhuseynov for prompt review!
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1586
Looks great to me, thank you for updated integration tests @cloverhearts !
CI fails on 2 profiles
```
Results :
Tests in error:
InterpreterRestApiTest.init:57
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1460
Looks good to me. CI is green now.
What do you think, @Leemoonsoo ?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1532
Looks great to me!
Merging to master, if there is no further discussion.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1508
Looks good to me, ð for tests!
Merging if there is no further discussion.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1515
Looks great to me! Let's :shipit:
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1530
Thank you for contributing!
How do you think, how hard would be to add some tests here, to make sure
the change does not break things?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1505
Looks great to me.
Thank you Mina for prompt fix!
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1378
@bustios let me know if you still think it's possible to make it optional
and I'll be happy to merge it.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear
GitHub user bzz opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1495
ZEPPELIN-1325: WIP - Python, advanced interpreter impl
### What is this PR for?
This is different implementation of Python interpreter that communicates to
external Python 2/3 process (not just
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/928
Sounds awesome, @rawkintrevo, thank you for keeping up a good work!
Let me try it this week and get back to you.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1334
Thank you so much @mfelgamal !
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1334
Thank you @mfelgamal !
Merging to master, if there is no further discussion
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1334
Great, thank you @mfelgamal for great job laying foundation for Apache Beam
integration! I hate to ask but, could you please rebase it on latest master one
more time? Looks like it have diverged
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1419
Merging to master, if there is no further discussion.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1419
Shall we merge this guy now?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1422
This code looks very similar to the one we have in [python
interpreter](https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/python/src/main/resources/bootstrap.py#L167),
contributed by @bustios
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1424
Looks good to me.
Will merge to master if there is no further discussion
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1330
Thank you @mwkang @khalidhuseynov !
Will merge to master, if there is no further discussion.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/928
@rawkintrevo thank you for sharing the ideas and keeping it up!
This sounds like very reasonable approach to me, at least until mahout is
Spark2 compliant.
So the idea is to provide
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1334
CI is still failing.
Sorry for confusion, after a bit more thinking it looks like simplest way
here actually will be - to follow the same convention as with any other
interpreters, like
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1334
@mfelgamal to address 1-2 can you please try to update `.travis.yml`: `-pl
\!beam` -> `-pl !beam` ?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply app
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1334
Looks great to me, thank you @mfelgamal !
I think it's ready to be merged.
The only minor thing that looks a bit off - re-formatted `pom.xml` is not
consistent with the other modules
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1411
Merging to master if there is no further discussion
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
GitHub user bzz opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1410
Fix download links
### What is this PR for?
In recent changes download links were broken on the project website
### What type of PR is it?
Hot Fix
### Todos
* [x
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1334
After running it locally, I think it is great but the last thing that would
be very nice to have, is to expand the example in the docs to be
self-contained, meaning easily runnable by the the first
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1384
@1ambda ð fot tests, looks great to me except for licensing issue
raised by Moon and small comment above.
If you could let me know you user name in ASF JIRA I'll be happy to help
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1401
Looks good to me, merging if there is no further discussion.
CI fails on single profile with 1 flaky test
```
[INFO] Zeppelin: Server ... FAILURE
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1407
Thank you for improvements, @cloverhearts
Looks good to me.
Although as discussed under
[ZEPPELIN-1360](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEPPELIN-1360) - this
approach have
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1376
RAT service taking too much input seems to be the issue here. I think it is
reproducable on local env as under
[ZEPPELIN-278](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEPPELIN-278)
---
If your project
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1401
I think having a separate profile it is reasonable approach for CI. Though
I also think there is value in keepinv the default behaviour for local Dev
workflow and make RAT check on by default
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1334
I think having it as it is now sounds as a good start. It can be always
enhanced it later on, based on user feedback.
Changes look great to me, thank you!
If that is ok - please let
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1333
Very similar test failure as we discussed above happened in un-related
#1363
[here](https://s3.amazonaws.com/archive.travis-ci.org/jobs/155836675/log.txt)
```
Failed tests
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1333
@zjffdu so there must be some state that persists between the runs.
@Leemoonsoo do you have any idea what that state might be that affects
`InterpreterFactoryTest `? There seems
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1371
Looks great to me, thank you @Peilin-Yang !
@corneadoug what do you think?
Let's merge to master, if there is no further discussion.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1376
@lresende shall we merge it or do you find @zjffdu suggestion to work and
we can close it for now?
Thank you @doanduyhai ! Let's try to close\open it to trigger the CI and
see if the failure
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1302
Looks great to me, thank you @astroshim !
On @corneadoug point - it should be possible to animate the icon button \w
arrows to be i.e rotating while "restart is in progress" s
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1378
I see, indeed we could change the default to always show dataframe index,
if you think it's more consistent with Python behavior, but let's add a flag
anyway, so later, in case we decided to switch
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1330
@mwkang could you please try close and then re-open this PR to trigger the
CI and see if the same issue persists? Thanks!
\cc @khalidhuseynov for review.
---
If your project is set up
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/932
Thank you for addressing licensing issues!
Let me look into that again and then merge to master, if there is no
further discussion.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1248
I'm sorry for delay, @mwkang - my plate was full last week.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1334
Few questions after another pass:
1. Right now Beam interpreter uses **Beam version 0.1.0-incubating**, but
didn't Beam project release 0.2.0-incubating on 2016-08-09? Do you think it
would
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1383
@demel-orange are you sure that this PR was made to the right repository?
:)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1384
The change of library looks great to me, ð for having a test case!
Few things to take care of, before merging it:
- for all the code, please make sure it follows project [styleguide
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1384
@1ambda thank you for improvement! Let me review and get back to you with
it.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1318
Looks great to me.
Merging to master, if there is no further discussion
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1377
LGTM.
CI is green as well.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1378
@bustios thank you for improvements!
Could you please explain a bit the benefits of having print index behaviour
enabled by default? Do you think it should not be optional?
It's
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1358
Looks great to me!
Merging to master if there is no further discussion.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1370
Looks good to me, thank you @lresende
BTW, from my experience, postin CI failure helps to speed up a review
process.
CI fails on Spark 2.0 profile \w
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1333
@zjffdu Looks great to me, modulo minor style issue above, thank you and
:+1: for tests!
One more thing - it's a bit strange ZEPPELIN-1334 has fix-for version ONLY
0.6.2 which implies
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1363
Let's merge #1371 first, and then it makes perfect sense to adjust this one
to match user expectations of sorting changes according to column type (so it
lets user override auto-detection
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1371
Thank you @Peilin-Yang !
It looks like it's `O(N)` from the table size - do you think there might be
a performance implication here? Just curious, but if it's a table - should not
analysing
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1339
Thank you for kind explanation and feedback. I think you proposal and
implementation with recent updates makes perfect sense.
Please keep up a good work and ping me back for the final review
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1301
Quick question: just to double-check - this should not affect users
following published build instructions like
https://www.mapr.com/blog/building-apache-zeppelin-mapr-using-spark-under-yarn
, right
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/932
After the licenses clarification, I think we should be good to merge - I
love the idea of having Jersey2.
\cc @Leemoonsoo @jongyoul for review as well
---
If your project is set up
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/932
Sorry, been a busy week. I think it needs to be rebased on latest master.
Few things on licensing:
There are two same **CDDL 1.1** texts now
`zeppelin-distribution/src/bin_license
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1351
@Peilin-Yang make sense, have updated jira fix-for version.
@corneadoug absolutely, please take your time for review.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email
101 - 200 of 535 matches
Mail list logo
