Hi,
This discussion is not only related to the work made by Massimo and
other contributors, but has further implications on how we include new
projects in OSGeoLive:
So far, Jupyter has been included in the development builds as a natural
evolution of the IPython project (which was also recently included in
OSGeoLive), so Jupyter never followed the path to be officially included
[1]. As we speak (far past the feature freeze date) only the overview
doc is committed so one could argue in favor of dropping Jupyter from
this release completely...
Furthermore, as part of the Jupyter setup, a big number [2] [3] of
Python projects/libraries were also added to OSGeoLive, as soft
dependencies to support Notebooks, without official review or decision
by the community, just by following volunteers' vision of what
functionality should be demonstrated by the Notebooks. Part of this
vision was to keep OSGeoLive relevant in terms of tools and trends in
the open source geospatial world.
Now the proposal is to select a subset of Notebooks to present to the
community in order to get feedback and build a notebook community to
support further adoption. A natural follow-up question is: should we
also select which supporting projects will be included? If we drop some
of the Notebooks, their dependencies should also be dropped, right?
So how do we decide which notebooks/supporting libraries to keep? And
how do we do that without being disrespectful to all volunteers who
contributed their time to maintain the Jupyter/Python stack for some
months now (including hacking notebooks, creating debian packages,
mentoring or participating in the GSoC project)?
Here is my proposal:
1. Massimo and Brian are named official maintainers of Jupyter, as the
only actual contributors of Notebooks [4]
2. Jupyter maintainers have to provide all the needed documentation
(overview and quickstart) ASAP, else Jupyter is dropped from 9.5
3. Jupyter maintainers get to decide which Notebooks to include in the
final iso.
4. If they disagree, the community votes weather to include all
notebooks OR drop Jupyter from 9.5 release and re-evaluate for 10.0
Regards,
Angelos
[1]
https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Disc#How_to_add_a_project_to_OSGeoLive
[2]
https://github.com/OSGeo/OSGeoLive/blob/master/bin/install_jupyter.sh#L30
[3]
https://github.com/OSGeo/OSGeoLive/blob/master/bin/install_jupyter.sh#L43
[4] https://github.com/OSGeo/OSGeoLive-Notebooks/graphs/contributors
On 03/08/2016 12:17 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Hi all,
I should clarify my statement below, (as has been to me off list), as
it might appear that I'm implying a lack of future, or quality of
notebooks.
My comments below relate to level of external testing and size of
community who have reviewed Massimo's notebooks.
I think that Massimo has done an excellent job pioneering notebooks
within the OSGeo-Live framework, and these notebooks provide a great
platform from which to demonstrate OSGeo functionality.
I think our next step is to work toward bringing a groundswell of
community behind the development of these notebooks.
My suggested approach differs a little with that proposed by Massimo,
although I think we are aiming toward the same long term goal (of wide
adoption and community maintenance of Notebooks within the OSGeo-Live
framework).
I'm proposing that we release just a few of the Notebooks first, seek
community feedback on this small subset, adapt if required. But most
importantly build an OSGeo-Live notebook community and buy in before
going too wide.
This question is still unresolved within the core OSGeo-Live team, and
we need to make a decision fast, as our Release Candidate is due next
Monday 14 March. Opinions from our OSGeo-Live community would be
greatly appreciated so we can make a wise decision moving forward.
Warm regards, Cameron
On 7/03/2016 10:54 pm, Cameron Shorter wrote:
Angelos, all,
I concerned about how much new material we are attempting add related
to Jupyter notebooks, all at the last moment.
With OSGeo-Live, we have built our reputation around quality and
stability, and I think we should be careful not to compromise that.
We will attract more users to Jupyter notebooks if they try one
excellent notebook, and look elsewhere for more, than if they try 10
notebooks which almost work.
So before adding a new Notebook, I suggest that it should be tested
start to finish, and then thoroughly reviewed by the author, and
then at least one other person, preferably 2.
Am I right in understanding that we are currently proposing to add ~
30 new notebooks? I'd be inclined to pick out 2 to 5 of these and
focus on getting just these working.
(The remainder can be included on OSGeo-Live for testing and
workshops, just ensure that you can only find it if provided with the
correct URL)
That said, who do we have available to help test notebooks? If you
can help out, please reply to this email, volunteering your services.
On 7/03/2016 10:34 pm, Angelos Tzotsos wrote:
2. Jupyter Notebooks: We currently have a git repository with
notebooks to include in the final release and we also have an open
pull request to merge the work from GSoC 2015 [5].
There is a special nightly build [6][7] including the GSoC notebooks.
We need to evaluate all our notebooks for this release and make a
decision on the notebooks to be included.
Perhaps we need a team of volunteers to go through all notebooks and
review them? Perhaps we need a spreadsheet listing all notebooks and
their status? Thoughts?
--
Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
OSGeo Charter Member
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
_______________________________________________
Live-demo mailing list
Live-demo@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/live-demo
http://live.osgeo.org
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Disc
