Thanks Cos for those answers, If I'm right you are advising to have a default build that doesn't include libraries with conflicting licenses, but have an option to include them for users who wants to build the project themselves.
To refer to another thread about decentralizing interpreters, it could even be better in that case to have some interpreters separated from the tree, and easily pluggable with a release instead of forcing users to build the project to use them. On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 04:28PM, Amos B. Elberg wrote: > > Konstantin thank you for getting into this. > > > >> The best way to go around it is by > >> providing a build-time option that will pull such binaries in. But by > default > >> such libs shouldn't be pulled. > > > > That is basically how the PR handles this. If the GPL’d interpreter > scripts > > are missing, there’s no indication at all at build time. It doesn’t try > to > > download them. > > > > At runtime, if the user tries to use functionality that would need such a > > script (i.e., if they type “knitr” to use knitr), we display an error > that > > says that the functionality is not there because the library is missing, > and > > that the library cannot be provided because it has an incompatible > license, > > but the user can download it themselves if they want. > > > > And, in the log, if the logging level is high, they will see a note that > > some functionality was disabled because the libraries weren’t there. > > > > To be clear, though, none of these libraries are binaries. They’re all > interpreter scripts. > > If you ever in a doubt of which licenses could be used for dependncies > (not to > say about source code) are listed in Category A list of [1] > > A lot of quesitons discussed here are already covered in the legal FAQ, so > just check against it if you have any questions. > > [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a > > Cos > > > From: Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> > > Reply: [email protected] < > [email protected]>, [email protected] < > [email protected]> > > Date: December 2, 2015 at 3:24:50 PM > > To: [email protected] <[email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: License of KnitRInterpreter Was: Re: contributions > impasse. Was: [GitHub] incubator-zeppelin pull request: R Interpreter for > Zeppelin > > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 06:56PM, Corneau Damien wrote: > > > I think that what moon means is that: > > > If we merge the way it is now, the KnitRInterpreter will be part of the > > > code base, so it isn't optional at code base level. > > > > > > To make it even more simple: > > > * If the code has the right licensing -> that code can be part of the > > > source code, and can be including in a binary release > > > > We aren't concerned with binary releases - as an Apache community we are > > voting and releasing source code. If the project wants to provide a > binary > > release to its users, they are better be warned about inclusion of non > > ASL2-friendly licensed bits. > > > > > * If the code doesn't have the right licensing -> it can't be part of > the > > > source code, and can't be included in a binary release > > > > See above. > > > > > * If the code doesn't have the right licensing but is imported at build > > > time (libraries for example) -> it is not in the source code, it can't > be > > > included in binary release > > > > That is unless a user doing it on his own. The best way to go around it > is by > > providing a build-time option that will pull such binaries in. But by > default > > such libs shouldn't be pulled. > > > > Cos > > > > > So in the case of licensing issues, it would need to be fully optional > > > (user bring the interpreter in his directory and build Zeppelin with > it) > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Amos B. Elberg <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Moon let me clarify: > > > > > > > > Interpreted code doesn’t “link.” The wiki article actually explains > it > > > > pretty well — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception > > > > “Linking” against a library means compiling its headers into a > binary, the > > > > way a C compiler works. The 2008 e-mail Moon distributed, called > this the > > > > “interpreter exception.” > > > > > > > > As for whether GPL’d code is a “mandatory dependency,” if knitr is > missing > > > > the PR will compile, run and test just fine. The user is never > prompted to > > > > download it. The only effect is, if the user types “knitr” and knitr > isn’t > > > > there, we display an InterpreterError that knitr isn’t there. > > > > > > > > KnitRInterpreter is not optionally required. so it does not matter > KnitR > > > > is > > > > optionally required or not. > > > > Aren’t all interpreters optional? You can turn them on and off in the > > > > config files. > > > > > > > > Do you mean that the KnitRInterpreter class gets compiled to > bytecode even > > > > if knitr is missing? So what? That isn't a mandatory dependency or a > link. > > > > > > > > From: moon soo Lee <[email protected]> > > > > Reply: [email protected] < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > Date: December 2, 2015 at 3:18:00 AM > > > > To: [email protected] < > [email protected]> > > > > Subject: Re: License of KnitRInterpreter Was: Re: contributions > impasse. > > > > Was: [GitHub] incubator-zeppelin pull request: R Interpreter for > Zeppelin > > > > > > > > Let me summarize license concern about KnitRInterpreter. > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos's interpretation. > > > > > > > > KnitR is optionally required by KnitRInterpreter. > > > > R dependency in SparkR has no problem. So KnitR should be the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > Moon's interpretation. > > > > > > > > KnitRInterpreter is not optionally required. so it does not matter > KnitR is > > > > optionally required or not. > > > > R dependency in SparkR is exception of GPL. KnitR is not applied that > > > > exception. > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos, could you confirm my understanding to your interpretation is > correct? > > > > If it is not could you clarify it? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > moon > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:34 AM Amos B. Elberg < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Just to put the final nail in this, I looked it up. > > > > > > > > > > I see no evidence of any “compiler exception.” > > > > > > > > > > There is an exception in the license for the runtime libraries > that are > > > > > bundled with GCC. See: > > > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.html > > > > > > > > > > But no “compiler exception.” > > > > > > > > > > In fact, I believe this is part of the reason why LLVM was created. > > > > > > > > > > From: moon soo Lee <[email protected]> > > > > > Reply: moon soo Lee <[email protected]> > > > > > Date: December 1, 2015 at 8:16:36 PM > > > > > To: Amos B. Elberg <[email protected]>, > > > > > [email protected] < > [email protected]> > > > > > Subject: Re: contributions impasse. Was: [GitHub] > incubator-zeppelin pull > > > > > request: R Interpreter for Zeppelin > > > > > > > > > > Is knitR is commonly considered as a interpreter/compiler? or is it > > > > > considered as a library routine? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > moon > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:12 AM Amos B. Elberg < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Moon - you give this as an explanation of the licensing issue: > > > > > https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2008-July/169332.html > > > > > > > > > > According to that, there is an exception in the GPL for interpreter > > > > > languages. As long as you don’t distribute the code, its fine to > talk to > > > > > an interpreted language. > > > > > > > > > > Well, if that’s the case, then the PR plainly does not have a > license > > > > > issue. It doesn’t distribute any GPL’d R code. > > > > > > > > > > I’m not sure what’s confusing about this. It seems completely > > > > > straightforward. > > > > > > > > > > Regarding this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Amos Elberg > > > > > Sent with Airmail > > > > > > > > > > From: moon soo Lee <[email protected]> > > > > > Reply: [email protected] < > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > Date: December 1, 2015 at 6:48:47 PM > > > > > > > > > > To: [email protected] < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: contributions impasse. Was: [GitHub] > incubator-zeppelin pull > > > > > request: R Interpreter for Zeppelin > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:09 AM Amos B. Elberg < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I am going to try to minimize my reaction to Moon’s e-mail. > > > > > > > > > > > > The tl;dr is this: > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason we are having this discussion now is that active > users of > > > > the > > > > > > PR — which now has its own user base — went public to complain > about > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The PR has been tested by an active user base for more than three > > > > months. > > > > > > No-one has been able to identify any specific actual licensing > problem, > > > > > and > > > > > > the PR was prepared based on an extensive, careful review of the > > > > relevant > > > > > > licensing issues and after contacting the relevant people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I admire every software that used by user and helping people. That > > > > includes > > > > > your work. But that's not the topic we're in discussion. Active > user does > > > > > not mean your contribution can ignore the review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not an explanation for someone who has been ignoring my > “how can > > > > I > > > > > > move this forward…” emails for three months to point the finger > and > > > > say I > > > > > > didn’t contact the right person or file the right report. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is also not the topic in this discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The burden for providing an explanation for the inaction is on > the PMCC > > > > > at > > > > > > this point. > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, but the other PRs are passing CI. If it's problem on > Zeppelin > > > > > > core, why do you think other PRs are passing CI? > > > > > > They’re not! I often see comments on PRs to just ignore that CI > is > > > > > > failing. > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the most common reasons this PR fails CI, is CI times-out > > > > > > downloading Spark to install. How could that possibly be caused > by the > > > > > PR? > > > > > > > > > > > > It looks to me like the only PRs with changes to the relevant > parts of > > > > > the > > > > > > code — the SparkInterpreter — are being made by the person who > wrote > > > > the > > > > > > testing suite. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, that would explain why some other PRs pass CI: Neither the > > > > > > SparkInterpreter nor the testing suite are stable or robust, but > since > > > > > the > > > > > > PRs are coming from the person who wrote both… > > > > > > > > > > > > And let's say Zeppelin core has problem and that makes your PR > fails on > > > > > CI > > > > > > test. That's possible. But it still does not mean we can merge > it with > > > > CI > > > > > > failing. > > > > > > > > > > > > It means you should be working with me to figure out why the CI > is > > > > > failing. > > > > > > > > > > > > This PR has been tested by an active user base for the past three > > > > months. > > > > > > If CI is continuing to fail, and dozens of hours of effort have > not > > > > > > resolved the CI issues, then it is time to start considering > whether > > > > the > > > > > > testing suite is part of the problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > The level of defensiveness about the CI and SparkInterpreter is > not > > > > > > helping to resolve these issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you think it's problem on Zeppelin core, then file an issue > that > > > > > > reproduce the problem on Zeppelin core, that might be more > efficient > > > > than > > > > > > keep trying yourself. > > > > > > I contacted you numerous times about such issues... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I remember i commented your issue about CI. but you just keep > repeated > > > > it's > > > > > not your problem but Zeppelin core problem. > > > > > > > > > > Then please file an issue about the problem you found in Zeppelin > Core. > > > > > Then everyone will get into the problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my interpretation, KnitRInterpreter is not an optional > feature while > > > > > it > > > > > > is always enabled when compiling Zeppelin and always enabled when > > > > running > > > > > > Zeppelin. And it requires dynamically linked GPL library on > runtime. > > > > (yes > > > > > > it will fail when no KnitR is installed on the system) > > > > > > > > > > > > Its not always enabled. > > > > > > It is not dynamically linked at runtime. > > > > > > It will not fail when knitr is missing. If knitr is not present, > the > > > > repl > > > > > > interpreter starts and a note is written to to the log that the > knitr > > > > > > interpreter isn’t available because knitr is not present. > > > > > > > > > > > > no Apache code can ever call a shell script, on the purpose of > dynamic > > > > > > linking with GPL library. > > > > > > You misunderstand. > > > > > > > > > > > > The *shell* is GPL'd. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is Zeppelin “linked" against the GPL’d shell because Zeppelin > depends > > > > on > > > > > a > > > > > > shell script to launch? > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously not. > > > > > > > > > > > > The interaction with R in the PR is the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, bash is one of exceptions of GPL, like other GPL licensed > > > > > compiler/interpreter. > > > > > > > > > > Check here why Bash and R is okay with Apache License. > > > > > https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2008-July/169332.html > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure we can apply the same exception for 'using' KnitR. > > > > > > > > > > My point is not 'KnitR' is optional or not. Point is > 'KnitRInterpreter' > > > > you > > > > > wrote is not an optional feature. Which is clearly not optionally > enabled > > > > > code and feature. And that depends on KnitR library which is GPL. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was guessing SparkR can be still in Apache License even if it > is > > > > > depends > > > > > > on R. Because of GPL licensed compiler generated output is not > GPL > > > > > license. > > > > > > and R is sort of compiler. If you can get answer from Spark > community > > > > how > > > > > > SparkR get managed to stay in Apache License while R is GPL, the > answer > > > > > > might help. > > > > > > The description of SparkR is not accurate in any respect. (Do > you think > > > > > > SparkR is not talking to GPL-licensed libraries?) > > > > > > > > > > > > I don’t see that any genuine issue is being raised here. > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is an issue, the burden is on you to identify it. > > > > > > > > > > > > If i give you one suggestion, Zeppelin committers sometimes ask > rebase > > > > > the > > > > > > contribution branch for some reason. It is not the really the > best > > > > > > practice, but still okay while most contributions are not > including > > > > large > > > > > > code base changes > > > > > > However, your one, has more than 4000 lines of code change. If > you > > > > rebase > > > > > > then review should be started from the beginning, again. So you > might > > > > > want > > > > > > to minimize the rebase your branch. > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you actually complaining that the problem is that I rebased > the > > > > code > > > > > > during the three-month period when no-one looked at it and > Zeppelin > > > > went > > > > > > through a release? > > > > > > > > > > > > I cannot take it seriously when you say things like this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Having to “start from the beginning” cannot be a problem if you > never > > > > > > actually started the first time... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You wanted coordination and cooperation. So i gave you suggestion > that > > > > > helping review process. For example, your code has been rebased > since my > > > > > comment and jongyoul's comment. that means committers will need to > look > > > > > from the beginning. That'll require more time. And maybe, i guess > that's > > > > > not what you want. But If you don't care, feel free to rebase. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > moon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: moon soo Lee <[email protected]> > > > > > > Reply: moon soo Lee <[email protected]> > > > > > > Date: December 1, 2015 at 4:42:06 AM > > > > > > To: Amos B. Elberg <[email protected]>, > > > > > > [email protected] < > [email protected]> > > > > > > Subject: Re: contributions impasse. Was: [GitHub] > incubator-zeppelin > > > > pull > > > > > > request: R Interpreter for Zeppelin > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:40 PM Amos B. Elberg < > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Thank you, Cos. > > > > > > > > > > > > I’d like to briefly address the issues raised by Moon: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. This PR does not passes CI > > > > > > The CI fails on core Zeppelin, *not* code in this PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > I’ve been seeking assistance on this since August. > > > > > > > > > > > > The most common reason is that SparkInterpreter is unable to > launch > > > > Spark > > > > > > and open a Spark Backend. This is necessary to test the PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > 60+ hours, has been spent adapting and re-basing when the > > > > > SparkInterpreter > > > > > > architecture changed and broke the PR’s *tests.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, but the other PRs are passing CI. If it's problem on > > > > Zeppelin > > > > > > core, why do you think other PRs are passing CI? > > > > > > > > > > > > And let's say Zeppelin core has problem and that makes your PR > fails on > > > > > CI > > > > > > test. That's possible. But it still does not mean we can merge > it with > > > > CI > > > > > > failing. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you think it's problem on Zeppelin core, then file an issue > that > > > > > > reproduce the problem on Zeppelin core, that might be more > efficient > > > > than > > > > > > keep trying yourself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Not 100% sure this PR has no license issue. (about KniteR) > > > > > > What license problem *specifically* do you believe may exist? > > > > > > > > > > > > In preparing the PR, I: > > > > > > > > > > > > * Reviewed the Apache policy in detail. > > > > > > > > > > > > * Contacted the FSF to ask their interpretation of the “linking” > > > > > > provisions of the GPL license. > > > > > > > > > > > > * Reviewed how other Apache software deals with this issue > (e.g., Spark > > > > > > talks to R, which is GPL'd). > > > > > > > > > > > > * No necessary *dependencies* of the PR have license conflicts. > In > > > > > > several cases, I contacted package authors who agreed to > re-issue their > > > > > > packages under Apache-compatible licenses. (Usually I had to do > a bit > > > > of > > > > > > coding in exchange…) > > > > > > > > > > > > * Where the license had to stay GPL, the packages are *not > necessary* > > > > and > > > > > > *not dependencies.* If the optional packages are present, they > will be > > > > > > used to enable additional functionality. Knitr is an example. > The PR > > > > will > > > > > > compile and run fine without knitr. If knitr is available (it is > part > > > > of > > > > > > the most common R distribution), the PR will enable the knitr > > > > > interpreter. > > > > > > > > > > > > * This is exactly how this issue is addressed through the Apache > > > > > > ecosystem. > > > > > > The tl;dr is this: When Apache code is written to talk to > libraries > > > > that > > > > > > may or may not be present on the user’s system, or where it > talks to an > > > > > API > > > > > > but is agnostic about implementation, that is not “linking” in a > way > > > > that > > > > > > implicate the anti-linking provision of the GPL. > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, no Apache code could ever call a shell script! Let > alone run > > > > > > on Linux, or talk to R. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not a legal expert. So following could be wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > In my interpretation, KnitRInterpreter is not an optional > feature while > > > > > it > > > > > > is always enabled when compiling Zeppelin and always enabled when > > > > running > > > > > > Zeppelin. And it requires dynamically linked GPL library on > runtime. > > > > (yes > > > > > > it will fail when no KnitR is installed on the system) > > > > > > > > > > > > And of course, no Apache code can ever call a shell script, on > the > > > > > purpose > > > > > > of dynamic linking with GPL library. > > > > > > > > > > > > I was guessing SparkR can be still in Apache License even if it > is > > > > > depends > > > > > > on R. Because of GPL licensed compiler generated output is not > GPL > > > > > license. > > > > > > and R is sort of compiler. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can get answer from Spark community how SparkR get > managed to > > > > stay > > > > > > in Apache License while R is GPL, the answer might help. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Need more time to review. > > > > > > Has any reviewer has downloaded the PR or run the demo notebook? > (Which > > > > > > is there for the benefit of reviewers, and isn’t intended to go > in > > > > final > > > > > > distribution.) > > > > > > > > > > > > How many +1 comments from users would you like to see? > > > > > > > > > > > > How much time do you believe is required? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It all depends on when CI is going to pass, when license problem > is > > > > going > > > > > > to be cleared, and when a committer willing to review and > responsible > > > > to > > > > > > commit your contribution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Large code base change > > > > > > Large code base changes require coordination and cooperation. > This PR > > > > > > necessarily implicates the build scripts, testing code, the > > > > > > SparkInterpreter, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have been seeking to coordinate since August. > > > > > > > > > > > > I continue to stand ready to do so. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Amos > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If i give you one suggestion, Zeppelin committers sometimes ask > rebase > > > > > the > > > > > > contribution branch for some reason. It is not the really the > best > > > > > > practice, but still okay while most contributions are not > including > > > > large > > > > > > code base changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, your one, has more than 4000 lines of code change. If > you > > > > rebase > > > > > > then review should be started from the beginning, again. So you > might > > > > > want > > > > > > to minimize the rebase your branch. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > moon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: moon soo Lee <[email protected]> > > > > > > Reply: [email protected] < > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > Date: December 1, 2015 at 1:34:19 AM > > > > > > To: [email protected] < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: contributions impasse. Was: [GitHub] > incubator-zeppelin > > > > pull > > > > > > request: R Interpreter for Zeppelin > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Cos, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for opening a discussion. > > > > > > My answer about 'Why this PR is open for three months' is > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. This PR does not passes CI > > > > > > 2. Not 100% sure this PR has no license issue. (about KniteR) > > > > > > 3. Need more time to review. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's my personal answer, other committers may have different > opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the question should be generalized. Because this PR is > not the > > > > > only > > > > > > PR that is in impasse. There're more. For example > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's some examples that PR is not been merged. > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/53, > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/60 > > > > > > and so on. > > > > > > > > > > > > I can categorize the cases, based on experience of involving > Zeppelin > > > > > > community from the beginning. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Large code base change > > > > > > > > > > > > When contribution has large code base changes, it tend to take > more > > > > time > > > > > to > > > > > > review and merged. Normally, most contributions merged in 1day~1 > week. > > > > > > But some contribution has large code base changes take 2~4 > weeks. Few > > > > > > contribution that has very large code base change take months. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Communication lost > > > > > > > > > > > > Sometimes, committer is not responding, or contributor is not > > > > responding. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Opinion diverges > > > > > > > > > > > > For some changes, included in contribution. When people have > different > > > > > > opinion and it continue to diverges, those PRs are not been > merged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think having a guide such as ping other committer when a > committer is > > > > > not > > > > > > responding, and divide contribution into small peaces if > possible, > > > > would > > > > > > help most of the cases. > > > > > > Of course committer have to pay attention more to the > contribution and > > > > > > helping people. That's the first one. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > moon > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:54 PM Konstantin Boudnik < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
