Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/889#issuecomment-218920877
It takes out a change I'd out there because the r interpreter jar wasn't
getting loaded in time in some circumstances. I need to test this. I will
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/commit/d5e87fb8ba98f08db5b0a4995104ce19f182c678#commitcomment-17441879
In bin/interpreter.sh:
In bin/interpreter.sh on line 88:
I'm not sure I see what you're referring
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/839#issuecomment-213078021
@jeffsteinmetz Which PR concerns the documentation?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/839#issuecomment-213077865
Its missing a reference to -Pr. I suggest
-Pr or -Psparkr (optional)
Alternative interpreters for R and sparkR.
---
If your project is
GitHub user elbamos opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/841
Fixed path for rzeppelin package for some users. [ZEPPELIN-810] Revise R
Tutorial notebook [ZEPPELIN-811]
### What is this PR for?
1. Fix a bug reported by J. Muedsam, where if
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/823#issuecomment-206699570
The patch shouldn't be necessary for the R interpreter from PR 208 right?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/815#issuecomment-205943423
My preference is b because it imposes the least burden on users.
I think most R users will want spark integration, and I think we disagree
about
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/815#issuecomment-205889050
Is there a proposal for what Eric and I should do about the name conflict?
> On Apr 5, 2016, at 10:21 AM, Alexander wrote:
>
> Lo
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-205406969
@bzz the push I just made fixed an issue that if -Pr wasn't specified, rat
would complain about the licenses of files under the r/ subdirectory. There
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-205132994
@bzz So we should be good to merge now right?
---
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 elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-205102505
@bzz thanks!
Yeah, I was going to suggest, that getting CI to work reliably is probably
something important to the project beyond the scope of this
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-205051026
@bzz Are we good?
---
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
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-204879627
@bzz The push I just made should reflect all of the latest requests. Thank
you for pointing out the effect of a case-insensitive FS. There are no
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-204811160
@bzz We are green! Good to go?
---
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 elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-204616417
@bzz are we good?
---
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
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-204612256
We may be good now - the only failures on the last push were of the
CI-random type.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-204597130
Yeah, I may let it load from the Zeppelin R library if we can't find
another solution.
I really don't want to use a user-specific
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-204582739
@bzz Here's where we are:
* I believe all the licensing, rat, and rebasing to-do's are resolved.
* On CI, trying to follow your proposal,
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-204268855
I need to take care of Alex' license requests, which I will later this
morning.
> On Apr 1, 2016, at 2:10 AM, Ankur Jain wrote:
>
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-203756326
@bzz I think I've just done what you requested.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitH
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-203751439
@bzz I'm not questioning the wisdom of why you're asking me what to do what
you're asking -- I just literally do not understand what you&
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-203733605
@jeffsteinmetz I just pushed the fixed screenshots. Thanks, by the way,
for asking that the show functions be taken out --- I can see that the
`googleVis
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-203731211
@bzz I'm not sure I understand what you're requesting -- but in any event,
I think the issue for right now is resolved, correct?
---
If your proj
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-203726914
Ah - you mean because I took out the show() functions yesterday in respect
of your comment about that.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-203726802
@jeffsteinmetz Can you be more specific? Do you mean because they refer to
%spark.r and %spark.knitr?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-203726453
@bzz I just looked at the list, and its all the same thing. I took out of
rscala the code for making an R->scala connection. There isn't anyt
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-203722796
@bzz Thank you for catching RException - I have taken out the reference to
DDahl.
I don't think this is that complicated:
* RClient.
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-203714774
@bzz - The test is back in with @ignore, and CI is green. Do you have a
decision on the license files?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-203698160
@bzz - that's basically the list for scala files, except that I'm pretty
sure RException was mine. The other thing is the R source. The rzep
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-203684695
@bzz I will look into junit ignore. Regarding the licenses, that issue is
where it has been: For files that are forked from other things, but also
contain
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-203250652
Open Jira issues for each failed test? It looks that you are just wasting
time. These are all issues that *you* committed, to me and to the community
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-203246814
@bzz The right place for the discussion of whether to work in this PR or a
branch or whatever, if Tom's proposal is off the table, is the devel
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-203235774
@bzz I don't know what the implications are of those options.
Honestly, I feel like if we spend time on that, its going to be a
distra
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-203226945
@bzz It does make sense. Tom's proposal, which everyone liked, was to merge
this into a feature version branch, and we can all use that to track down th
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-203213146
@bzz Do you intend to take any *constructive* action to move this
*forward*? This PR has been waiting for *your* action items for three weeks,
where you
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-203158716
@jeffsteinmetz They're *all* unrelated. That's kind of the point.
A few minutes ago it was passing Spark 1.6 and selenium, but failing
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-203154616
@jeffsteinmetz I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing?
At this moment this PR isn't failing CI. It builds and tests fine.
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-203134960
I just spent 3 hours trying to replicate the error. I cannot replicate it
on Ubuntu or OSX with Spark 1.5.2 or Spark 1.6.
Looking at the error
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-202727314
@jeffsteinmetz I had a typo in the default template, it should be fixed now
and %r show up. Thanks for catching!
You are correct that build-distr
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-202682652
The push earlier tonight *should* (if it doesn't, let me know) resolve all
comments I've received about this PR.
It currently passes CI
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-202223003
@bzz Let me just add, to avoid any doubt --- I hope I'm wrong. If I am,
then I'll be most appreciate, and most apologetic for misjudging you.
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-202220759
@bzz Alex - The two "issues" that you identified on my repo are as follows:
1. Two files are flagged as requiring an Apache license header
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/702#issuecomment-202179412
Nothing in what you just said is truthful. If you think what you are
attempting to do is anything but the opposite of what the community consensus
was in
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/702#issuecomment-202170557
It is not at all a surprise that you would propose to merge 702---a few
hours after I asked for community involvement on another PR, where you objected
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/789#issuecomment-202133105
Moon I've explained the objection to you several times. You're choosing to
ignore that. I am therefore telling you don't have a consensus and
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/789#issuecomment-202127132
I'm not sure why it is you don't want to send the email to the list, but
fine, I will do so later on.
When you decided to submit this to
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/789#issuecomment-202116183
Moon - will you be raising this on the mailing list or are you abandoning
the issue?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/789#issuecomment-201965711
I meant the developer mailing list for Zeppelin. We can continue the
discussion there in the presence of others.
> On Mar 26, 2016, at 8:51 PM,
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/789#issuecomment-201953405
No - if I have to do that, I think it will have to go to the community, so
instead of wasting my time let's just discuss it there.
> O
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/789#issuecomment-201949274
I've explained this several times already in multiple forums. If you don't
want to accept it, then you should raise the issue on the developers li
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/789#issuecomment-201866799
No -echarles is right. The current preference system is terribly confusing
and often inconsistent. It is a source of user complaint.
This PR in its
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-197538863
@bzz Can you update us on the status of this? What is the ETA on making
progress with CI?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-195114026
Yes you did understand - I just checked and I know why it didn't work for
you, I'll fix it next time I'm in the code.
The xtable pa
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-195057406
The row id's aren't part of the table in R. Also, R actually is formatting
the table in a specific way. Try returning a data_frame vs a data.frame
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-195055673
Many R users prefer to use knitr over a repl. Knitr also enables a lot of
things that would otherwise be very complex, like packages for producing
properly
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-195054465
The R coding style standard is that variables defined by a package are
prefixed with a '.' It seemed to me that "z" stands a
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-195053667
In R, when a string gets returned to the repl by an expression, it gets
formatted by calling print(). This is why the magic isn't working as you
expect
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-195050132
The standard in R is that the return value of an expression is determined
by the interpreter. When a data.frame is returned, the interpreter in the R
distro
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-195041973
It can be changed. I like verbose logging to help diagnose user issues.
Logging especially the spark contection is very beneficial. But the level of
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-193685964
@bzz - The reason a rebase is required *again* is that so much time has
passed. Moon committed to work on the CI issues in December. You committed to
do
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-193061151
@bzz Are there any tasks outstanding that you're waiting on me for? What's
left to be done for merge?
The only things I remember are o
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-189144007
I think it is "complete" and "working" -- the convenience binary is not
part of the release, and a new one isn't going to be
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-189129155
Jeff - well that log explains it, the R package isn't being included in the
distribution binary.
I'm not sure I understand either the g
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-189116032
@jeffsteinmetz A couple of things are happening here --
First, I would expect it to fail if you run it from zeppelin-distribution
because the pom&#
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-188377139
I agree with the proposal above. @jeffsteinmetz I had trouble finding the
script you're referring to - can you provide a link?
---
If your project i
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-188128084
I just pushed fixes for the issue spotted by @jeffsteinmetz, the extraneous
R Studio file, and (I think) the misalligned function. @hsaputra can you
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-187961103
@jeffsteinmetz Thanks for your comment. By default, `r` and `knitr` are in
the `spark` interpreter group, so Zeppelin lets them be called by
`%r`/`%spark.r
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-187787778
@bzz Hey just checking-in to see how we're doing and if there's anything I
can do at this point to help move us along toward merge.
---
If your
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/702#issuecomment-187786770
@echarles Its one thing for you to wait for me to identify the missing
functionality in your PR for you to implement it. *Making up* that features
are
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/702#issuecomment-187764059
@btiernay support for that has been in 208 all along...
> On Feb 23, 2016, at 9:27 AM, Bob Tiernay wrote:
>
> @echarles This
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-186019660
@bzz I'm trying to implement these changes now. A few comments:
* The DESCRIPTION file -- this is a file with a particular format. The
li
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-185080486
@bzz @jongyoul This push *should* have removed the extraneous git
artifacts. It is still a lot of files. If we want to split it up into smaller
bits, I
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-184805345
@bzz All of the issues you identified are git-rebase artifacts. None of
them are intended as part of the PR. Please keep in mind the PR was originally
in
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-184592116
Rebase done, but not fully tested... Work ongoing...
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-183994878
@bzz I'm working on this now and will push something later tonight. Is
there anything on CI that I should take into account? Thanks.
---
If
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-173444542
Sounds right, except the existing PR should fail on spark 1.6 anyway. The
version currently on my repo as 0.5.6 is up to date with 0.5.6 release
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/604#issuecomment-171113980
@doanduyhai Its fine. Its not confusing at all.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/626#issuecomment-171106557
+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 project does not have this
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/586#issuecomment-168235446
@hayssams Can you provide step-by-step directions for configuring and using
this?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/53#issuecomment-168122737
@hayssams Can you provide a very step-by-step intro readme? Default
username/pass, what the authentication backend is, how users/groups are added,
how to
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/53#issuecomment-167490159
I think we should have an organized plan to review and address this PR.
I propose that the PR be merged into a new branch of Zeppelin, where the
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-164651464
@hsaputra There shouldn't be any changes in the new branch that are
relevant to Travis CI testing. If there's anything I can do to move the Tra
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/530#issuecomment-164232352
@felixcheung
Miscellaneous requests for improvement belong in jiras.
Rather than giving everyone suggestions on what to do in their PRs
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-163856738
The current version of this is here:
https://github.com/elbamos/Zeppelin-With-R
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/523#issuecomment-163145070
This is a really good template.
Two questions:
1. Do other open source projects find this level of formality necessary?
I'm not saying
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/463#issuecomment-162787310
@jongyoul
The problem with "half and half" is a separate discussion that doesn't
matter for here.
Do you agree with me that
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/463#issuecomment-162758985
@felixcheung
No, that's not what the code is doing, sorry. Your changes don't introduce
any new conditions in the code at all.
-
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/463#issuecomment-162752711
@felixcheung
That code change does not make sense. It looks to me like the new code
literally **does nothing**.
If this was a version
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/463#issuecomment-162751848
@jongyoul
I think I was not clear. I do *not* think we should treat Spark as just
like any other interpreter.
I think we should either
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/463#issuecomment-162747222
@jongyoul
Thank you for considering my concern.
I do *not* agree that we should support using Zeppelin with Spark without a
manually
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/463#issuecomment-162741070
@felixcheung I don't see anything in the PR related to changed Spark APIs.
Can you identify what you are talking about with a link to a specific li
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/463#issuecomment-162740944
@jongyoul No, it has the opposite effect -- it makes the build process
cumbersome, much longer than it should be, and prone to failure. It also
creates a
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/463#issuecomment-162334278
Wasn't the whole purpose of the spark-dependencies module, so the
dependencies could be managed for new Spark releases without these kinds of
i
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/463#issuecomment-162332053
Guys - I don't want to be the downer here, but:
* This PR changes what looks like hundreds of lines of the dependency
structure in the build
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-157203411
The current push should resolve some issues with changes in the
Spark-Zeppelin interface that had created issues for users, as well as support
for 1.5.1
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-157158373
To anyone who may be coming here from today's blog post and confused by
these comments about the current status:
The RInterpreter for zeppelin
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-156911495
@felixcheung You're lying.
In fact I found out about what you'd done from a user who contacted you
after seeing your slides, and tried t
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-156910880
@felixcheung You're clearly lying since your code never worked and still
doesn't. The code is right there on your git -- or rather, it *isn'
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-156910412
@jongyoul
I apologize for this, but I find it almost impossible to follow what you
are trying to say.
The R source code is -- obviously
Github user elbamos commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-156909774
@jongyoul What's excluded from rat are files that get generated
automatically during the build process -- they are the R equivalent of a .class
or .jar
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
