To make sure we're on the same page, here are two threads that I found related to this topic.
Thread 1:
Subject: R?
Started on: July 1, 2015
Thread 2:
Subject: [GitHub] incubator-zeppelin pull request: R Interpreter for Zeppelin
Started on: August 13, 2015
If you want to fetch these from our archive send emails to
[email protected]
[email protected]
Cos
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 06:27PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> Guys,
>
> While catching up on my emails from the last a couple of weeks, this thread
> caught my attention. I am not normally paying much attention to the code
> reviews traffic from GH, but this one is pretty different as it spans three
> months and counting.
>
> First, here are my five cents:
> - r/R/rzeppelin/LICENSE is wrong: if the code is aimed to be contributed to
> an ASF project this file should simply contain ASL2 text, like in [1]
> - r/pom.xml perhaps shouldn't contain a separate <developers> section, but
> Zeppelin might have different guidelines on it. Say, Bigtop doesn't
> maintain this in the source code, but we have the list of all the
> committers on the project's site [2] Every new committer's first commit is
> to update the team page ;)
> - comments like in
> r/src/main/java/org/apache/zeppelin/rinterpreter/KnitR.java
>
> +/**
> + * Created by aelberg on 7/28/15.
> + */
>
> is better to be removed. It has been already discussed here [3]. And the
> initial discussion on the topic [4] was linked as well
> - same goes to r/R/rzeppelin/DESCRIPTION. I am not sure if this is R-specific
> stuff - I have no idea about R, honestly, but
>
> +License: GPL (>= 2) | BSD_3_clause + file LICENSE
> ...
> +Author: David B. Dahl
>
> shouldn't be here, IMO. Normally, if some additional licenses are used,
> they have to be listed in the top-level NOTICE file (already there).
>
> - I am not going to offer any comments on the technical merits of the patch,
> as I haven't tried it personally. However, I don't see any serious
> technical objections to the functionality in question.
>
> So, the question is - why the PR is open for three months? I hasn't been able
> to get a clear answer. What I found out though is pretty unsettling, really.
> The communication on the topic is almost non-existent, except for this sparse
> and bitter thread in the GH.
>
> I would love to hear from the committers what's stopping the acceptance of the
> code, besides of the minor issues I've mentioned earlier? What are the
> reasons for it?
> Is there anything wrong with it?
> One of the responsibilities of the committers is to make sure the
> contributions are reviewed; new contributors are guided and do understand how
> the project ticks. The easy feedback flow attracts new people, allowing the
> community to grow and thrive.
>
> I am asking _explicitely_ not to re-start the bickering I have already
> seen. At this point I am interested in the purely technical side of this.
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/bigtop/blob/master/LICENSE
> [2] http://bigtop.apache.org/team-list.html
> [3]
> http://apache-nifi-developer-list.39713.n7.nabble.com/author-tags-td1335.html
> [4] http://s.apache.org/iZl
>
> With regards,
> Cos
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:06PM, elbamos wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > Knitr support is improved, and the reason for a separate knitr
> > interpreter may be clearer now.
> >
> > The amount of code borrowed from rscala is reduced.
> >
> > I did not address issues with @author tags, or files under the R/
> > folder. The reason is, to be blunt, I don't understand what the precise
> > concerns actually are.
> >
> > Please note that I changed .travis.yml to only use spark 1.4 and later.
> > I'm sure there is a better way to do it, but I'm just not in a position
> > to try to figure out the entire Zeppelin build process.
> >
> > Integrating this with the rest of zeppelin is going to take some work
> > regarding pom's, travis, and so forth. I can do a lot of that, but I'm
> > going to need to discuss it with the people who have been "owning" those
> > files. There are just too many moving pieces here.
> >
> > Because of the size of this (which is, unfortunately, necessary),
> > posting here is probably not the most efficient way. That is also true
> > because certain people chose to use this PR as a forum to air other
> > issues. Therefore, it would be better if reviewers e-mail me directly.
> >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
