Thanks Amos for replying. On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:17 AM Amos B. Elberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Moon — I think there is a misunderstanding about the topic of the > discussion. > > The PR has its own userbase. It has been and is being presented at user > groups. Its been blogged and tweeted about (none of that came from me!) > The features are the subject of two jiras and on the Zeppelin roadmap. > So, the discussion isn't about whether the PR is “good." > > But no-one responded to the PR until users began to tweet publicly @nflabs > asking why the PR had not been adopted, and e-mailing you directly. This > looks really bad, especially when the project is considering applying to > leave incubation. > > Thanks for pinging me. Otherwise i couldn't able to know that you're still working on it and ready to review. I think it's good practice that pinging committer for review when there is no sign of response. Except for ping message has been made on twitter and private email instead of public mailing list / jira / github issue comment. > The question here is what, if anything, prevents us from letting bygones > be bygones and moving forward with this now? > > Claims about CI issues, or licenses, or the PR shouldn’t have been rebased > (!?!) — well, they don’t really make sense. > > Although i didn't review your contribution from day 1, I'm reviewing your contribution, discussing about license, discussing about improvement of impasse, all they're part of moving forward. I am moving forward. Of course, I can claim CI, license, etc and any other issue. Especially when CI is not passing, I can not sure about the license. To me, these claims are sign of 'healthy community' not sign of 'does not make sense'. You're not meaning, your contribution always need to be accepted without any claim. right? > I keep offering to begin coordinating to integrate the PR with Zeppelin’s > CI and build system. > > But the answer (except from Roman) is still “nah, let us know if you > figure it out.” > > > Actually, my answer was, "If you think CI is failing not because of your change but because of Zeppelin core problem, then file an jira issue about it. Everyone will look into". > > > Regarding the history: > > Konstantin wisely started this thread by saying let’s keep the history out > of the discussion. I am respecting that. > > If the PR becomes part of Zeppelin, its going to need to be maintained, > which means that we are going to need to be able to work together. > > I have been persuaded to give Moon the benefit of the doubt regarding > certain issues. He certainly knows what my view of the history is. > > If anyone else would like to know, I am happy to share it with them > off-list. > I don't know your view of history and what you think the history is. So please share them in PUBLIC on this thread NOT off-list, if you think that's reason you think your contribution is in impasse. Otherwise I'll never know what you're thinking and I'll not improve. More importantly, it's easy to make people misunderstand you that you're just trying to make a negative noises. So, do you mind share your view of history in this thread? Thanks, moon > > From: moon soo Lee <[email protected]> > Reply: [email protected] < > [email protected]> > Date: December 2, 2015 at 7:45:11 AM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: contributions impasse. Was: [GitHub] incubator-zeppelin pull > request: R Interpreter for Zeppelin > > Thanks Roman and Eran for the feedback. > > *A. About contribution impasse in general* > > I think i summarized why it happens and how it can be improved. ie. > > 1. Large code base change > 2. Communication lost > 3. Opinion diverges > > And my solution was > > Guide to ping other committer when a committer is not responding, divide > contribution into small peaces if possible. And committer pay more > attention to the contribution. > > I'd like to hear and learn any more idea to improve. > > > *B. About contribution impasses in R interpreter for Zeppelin* > > Although I'was the first one who reviewed and commented this contribution > among the committer, I feel contributor (Amos) is unhappy about the review. > > I want to analyze the reasons and improve this, too. > > Here's reason i guess > > 1. Late responding (first review has been made after 3 months) > 2. Lack of help on CI fail (Amos keep complained about CI fail) > > I think both 1 and 2 can be improved by the solution i suggested in section > A. > > Amos, if you think there're more reasons, please feel free to say and let > me improve. What is the history you're mentioning? > > Best, > moon > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:44 PM Alexander Bezzubov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Just pushing discussion back on the list > > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015, 01:14 Amos B. Elberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Alex — if you genuinely do not know the history of this, then I will > fill > > > you in. > > > > > > lmk… > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Amos Elberg > > > Sent with Airmail > > > > > > From: Alexander Bezzubov <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > > Reply: Alexander Bezzubov <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > > Date: December 1, 2015 at 6:14:20 AM > > > To: [email protected] < > [email protected] > > > > > > <[email protected]>, Amos B. Elberg > > > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > > > > > Subject: Re: contributions impasse. Was: [GitHub] incubator-zeppelin > > > pull request: R Interpreter for Zeppelin > > > > > > @Amos, we had plenty of cases of CI failing and always the > pre-condition > > > for a merge was a green CI. Sometimes that requires time, polite > > > collaboration, extra mile in direct asking for help from more > experienced > > > members and fixes in different places, which indeed might take time, as > > > everyone is busy. > > > > > > > > >
