Apologies about being upset in this thread with non-technical issue.
How about we start from adding such things like - Ping the other committer when no response from committer - Keep codebase change small if possible (or break contribution into small peaces when possible) in somewhere https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md Does it make sense? Thanks, moon On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:24 PM Corneau Damien <[email protected]> wrote: > As Cos stated before: > > 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. > > > I guess the way to work towards resolving this PR's blocking elements have > already been listed before, > and there is another discussion to prepare a topic for legal@ > > So there is no reason to continue that thread if it isn't to find a way to > resolve it. > > We already discussed a bit about the PR review process here and in another > mailing list thread. > We are also having a PR to document our current review process [1] > > We do have a lot of PR on stand by and I feel sorry for that (currently > 85), we usually tend to be more on alert on those that have some activity > (notifications). > We always try to keep track on old PR that needs review or help, but we > also have new PR and issues coming everyday. > We try to satisfy everybody but are also keen on maintaining code quality. > Reviewing PR is not an easy job, it's time consuming, time committers > would probably prefer spending coding. > We do it mainly on our spare time, and it's easy to fall into productivity > issues when it comes to prioritizing. > > So I hope you understand better how this works, and that your PR will be > good to go soon. > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/502 > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Amos B. Elberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Is there any reason that you can't tell here? >> Please re-read the e-mail from Konstantine that started the thread. >> >> If you can't tell anything, Is it okay to me assume that you just wanted >> make negative noise in the community with unidentified words? >> Please just share your thinking and let me hear and improve from it. >> >> I don’t see how having that discussion in public would serve any purpose. >> >> If you genuinely don’t understand — the end of our e-mail exchange was an >> invitation for you to call me on the phone and attempt to resolve those >> issues without the misunderstandings of tone that can happen in our e-mail >> exchange. >> >> The invitation stands. >> >> I will continue to look for ways to move forward in the spirit of >> cooperation and teamwork. >> >> >> From: moon soo Lee <[email protected]> >> Reply: moon soo Lee <[email protected]> >> Date: December 2, 2015 at 10:24:52 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 >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:05 PM Amos B. Elberg <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Moon, >> >> I still suggest, one of the best way you can find that person is, file an >> issue about the CI problem that you found on Zeppelin Core. >> All of the relevant people are already informed. >> >> I continue to be ready to work cooperatively with anyone who would like >> to help me resolve the issues. >> >> I did clearly pointed what rule could be violated and provided a link and >> tried the best at explanation. >> Maybe this is a language issue, but I have no idea what your concern >> about a license is. >> >> You did cite to two web pages. Neither of them said anything that would >> explain your position. In fact, they confirmed what I had been saying all >> along. >> >> So i'm going to continue the discussion in the other thread about the >> license and will move the discussion to legal-discuss@. >> You’re welcome to do that, of course. I don’t know that I will >> participate. >> >> What i'm not really fine is, having not enough discussion and concern >> about >> license. That's sign of unhealthy community. >> As Konstantine has pointed out: The ASF has existed for 16 years. This >> cannot be the first time that this issue arose. The ASF has a “legal faq” >> and other public documents that discuss various licensing issues. >> >> In addition, a primary responsibility of the PMCC — perhaps the most >> important responsibility — is making sure the project conforms to ASF >> licensing policy. >> >> In terms of community health, my concern is that there is a great deal of >> confusion about these licensing issues, and people are not able to find a >> definitive answer simply by checking the ASF documents (or even attempting >> to do so). >> >> (Hint: I reviewed the ASF materials in great detail in preparing the >> PR.) >> >> I still don't know which part of the email are you referring. … What are >> you referring "the history"? >> >> You know *exactly* what I’m talking about. >> >> >> Amos, >> >> This mailing list is subscribed by hundreds of people. Let's not trying >> to make meaningless posts. >> >> I told you i *exactly* don't know what you're talking about "the history". >> So why don't you pin point what *exactly* you talking about, in public? >> >> Is there any reason that you can't tell here? >> If you can't tell anything, Is it okay to me assume that you just wanted >> make negative noise in the community with unidentified words? >> >> Please just share your thinking and let me hear and improve from it. >> >> Thanks, >> moon >> >> >> From: moon soo Lee <[email protected]> >> Reply: [email protected] < >> [email protected]> >> Date: December 2, 2015 at 9:19:50 PM >> >> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: contributions impasse. Was: [GitHub] incubator-zeppelin >> pull request: R Interpreter for Zeppelin >> >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:34 AM Amos B. Elberg <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Moon, thank you for your reply. >> > >> > 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 believe the constructive way to move forward, would be for someone who >> > well-understands the CI & build structure, to begin working with me to >> > resolve the CI/build integration issues. >> > >> > I continue to be ready to work with that person. >> > >> >> >> I still suggest, one of the best way you can find that person is, file an >> issue about the CI problem that you found on Zeppelin Core. >> That'll reduce the scope of the problem and that'll help people quickly >> getting into without understanding your contribution entirely. >> >> >> >> > >> > Regarding licensing, I took extensive research steps before submitting >> the >> > PR to make sure there was not a licensing problem. >> > >> > In fact, many things in the structure of the code were chosen >> specifically >> > to avoid any licensing problem. I even negotiated with the authors of >> some >> > libraries to switch to Apache-compatible licenses, and did some work on >> > their projects in exchange. >> > >> > Considering all of that — If anyone thinks there is a licensing issue, >> if >> > they want to be constructive, the *least* they can do is say clearly >> > exactly what rule is being violated, how it is being violated, and >> provide >> > a link or citation or *something* that shows the opinion is more than >> > hand-waving. >> > >> > I am ready to engage with anyone who does that. >> > >> >> There is separate thread for the license. So i'll leave minimal comment >> here. >> >> I did clearly pointed what rule could be violated and provided a link and >> tried the best at explanation. You don't agree on my concern does not mean >> it's okay to pass. Just like i don't agree on your opinion does not mean >> it's confirmation of license problem. >> >> Of course my concern could be wrong, that's totally fine to me. I don't >> have any problem on that. I'm not a legal expert. >> >> What i'm not really fine is, having not enough discussion and concern >> about >> license. That's sign of unhealthy community. >> >> So i'm going to continue the discussion in the other thread about the >> license and will move the discussion to legal-discuss@. >> >> >> >> > >> > I don't know your view of history and what you think the history is. >> > Yeah you do. >> > >> > We had an exchange about it a week before this thread began. >> > >> > Some of it even spilled-over into the PR comments after I saw the video. >> > >> > >> >> I still don't know which part of the email are you referring. The >> suggestion i made about your code? about the review? about the conference? >> about the meetup? What are you referring "the history"? >> >> Please say in public. What is the history and show how they're related to >> this thread topic. Otherwise I'll assume you just want to make a negative >> noise in the community. >> >> Thanks, >> moon >> >> >> >> > 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. >> > >> > I am going to follow Konstantin’s lead reading this issue, and try to >> give >> > you the benefit of the doubt. >> > >> > >> > From: moon soo Lee <[email protected]> >> > Reply: [email protected] < >> > [email protected]> >> > Date: December 2, 2015 at 5:06:52 PM >> > To: [email protected] < >> [email protected]> >> > Subject: Re: contributions impasse. Was: [GitHub] incubator-zeppelin >> pull >> > request: R Interpreter for Zeppelin >> > >> > 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. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
