opennlp-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joern Kottmann <kottm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [GitHub] opennlp pull request #238: Revert merging of sentiment work, no consent to m...
Date Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:35:38 GMT
Hello Chris,

could you please point me to files I can use to train the sentiment
component? I am currently looking again through the code and would
like to train it myself.

Jörn

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Dan Russ <danruss00@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>    First, let me take a share of blame for the comment Chris mentioned.  I believe I
said something like the pull request was X revision behind and Y revisions ahead.  It was
not meant to be rude, it was meant to say it is hard to review code when it is so different
from the current code base. I am very excited that sentiment analysis is going to be added
to OpenNLP, but I have not had time to play with it. If I were to say “great job” before
I have add a chance to look at it, it would be flattery not honest praise.
>
>   Let’s clean up the merge.  I agree with Chris that scalability and perfection should
not be our initial goal.  Let’s get something, and we can decide how to optimize later (even
if it require a complete rewrite).  Perfection is the enemy of the good.
>
>   Finally, because of Chris’ comments it is hard to thank Ana and Chris without sounding
insincere.  But I’ll try, thank you Chris and Ana.  I hope we can get beyond this and that
Chris and Ana will continue to improve the performance of the sentiment analysis tool and
happily remain part of the OpenNLP family.  It is also a good time to toss a big thank you
to all of the committers, users, and PMC member.  I use OpenNLP almost everyday.  Your work
is extremely valuable to me.
>
> Thank you,
> Daniel
>
>> On Jun 27, 2017, at 10:25 AM, Chris Mattmann <mattmann@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I spoke with Joern in Slack. Some of his concerns are:
>>
>> 1. This was done with a Merge commit and apparently they squash and rebase.
>> [would be helpful to see some pointer on this for documentation, thus far I
>> haven’t found any]
>> 2. Apparently we literally need to ask others for +1 votes and record them
>> before committing? I thought since Ana and I are committers aren were +1,
>> and since Joern had been providing feedback (the last of which was to add
>> tests, which we did) that he would be +1 as well (I guess he is not, and I guess
>> formally we need to do a +1 vote even still)
>> 3. There was concern about scalability of the code.
>> 4. There are thoughts that the code was not perfect yet (even though it works
>> fine in the MEMEX project for Ana and I)
>>
>> So, Joern has opened up a revert PR.
>>
>> I suppose I should state I find this process extremely heavyweight and unwelcoming.
>> To me, there should be a modicum of trust for committers, but I feel like even as
a
>> committer, I am operating as a “contributor” to the project. Committer means
that
>> there is trust to modify the source code base. Of the issues above, the only one
I see
>> as a moderate snafu was #1, and frankly if there are some instructions that show
me
>> how to do squashing and rebasing *first* I will try to do that in the future since
I am
>> not a GIt expert.
>>
>> That said, I must state I feel pretty put off by Apache OpenNLP. This originated
as a GSoC
>> effort, and we have worked pretty consistently on this over the last year. We used
a
>> separate GitHub project to get started, kept Joern involved as another mentor, even
>> provided access and commit writes to that GitHub repository for a long time, so this
>> code was developed in the open. Joern even created a branch in ApacheOpenNLP in the
code and I suppose
>> I should have gone and worked on that branch first since master is apparently so
>> pristine that even an Apache veteran like me can’t get something in to it without
>> making a whole bunch of (what are IMO minor issues, and what are IMO heavyweight
>> “community” issues).
>>
>> I am concerned from a community point of view that the first comment wasn’t “Great
>> job Chris, you got Sentiment Analysis into Apache, *but* I have these concerns 1-4
above”.
>> It was “The PR was merged wrong in ways 1-4 and I’m going to revert it.”
>>
>> That’s pretty off-putting to someone who is semi-new like me and like Ana.
>>
>> Anyways, go ahead and revert it. Sorry to have caused any issues.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/27/17, 7:06 AM, "Chris Mattmann" <mattmann@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>    Hi Joern,
>>
>>    I’m confused. Why did you revert my commit?
>>
>>    Every one of those check points you put on the PR was checked?
>>    We have been discussing this for months, you have seen the
>>    code for months, Ana and I have worked diligently on the code
>>    in plain view of everyone.
>>
>>    Please explain.
>>
>>    Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    On 6/27/17, 1:23 AM, "kottmann" <git@git.apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>        GitHub user kottmann opened a pull request:
>>
>>            https://github.com/apache/opennlp/pull/238
>>
>>            Revert merging of sentiment work, no consent to merge it
>>
>>            Thank you for contributing to Apache OpenNLP.
>>
>>            In order to streamline the review of the contribution we ask you
>>            to ensure the following steps have been taken:
>>
>>            ### For all changes:
>>            - [ ] Is there a JIRA ticket associated with this PR? Is it referenced
>>                 in the commit message?
>>
>>            - [ ] Does your PR title start with OPENNLP-XXXX where XXXX is the JIRA
number you are trying to resolve? Pay particular attention to the hyphen "-" character.
>>
>>            - [ ] Has your PR been rebased against the latest commit within the target
branch (typically master)?
>>
>>            - [ ] Is your initial contribution a single, squashed commit?
>>
>>            ### For code changes:
>>            - [ ] Have you ensured that the full suite of tests is executed via mvn
clean install at the root opennlp folder?
>>            - [ ] Have you written or updated unit tests to verify your changes?
>>            - [ ] If adding new dependencies to the code, are these dependencies licensed
in a way that is compatible for inclusion under [ASF 2.0](http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a)?
>>            - [ ] If applicable, have you updated the LICENSE file, including the
main LICENSE file in opennlp folder?
>>            - [ ] If applicable, have you updated the NOTICE file, including the main
NOTICE file found in opennlp folder?
>>
>>            ### For documentation related changes:
>>            - [ ] Have you ensured that format looks appropriate for the output in
which it is rendered?
>>
>>            ### Note:
>>            Please ensure that once the PR is submitted, you check travis-ci for build
issues and submit an update to your PR as soon as possible.
>>
>>
>>        You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
>>
>>            $ git pull https://github.com/kottmann/opennlp revert_sentiment
>>
>>        Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:
>>
>>            https://github.com/apache/opennlp/pull/238.patch
>>
>>        To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
>>        with (at least) the following in the commit message:
>>
>>            This closes #238
>>
>>        ----
>>        commit 123222eb34724bae793e9d6d22e202c0aee0aa45
>>        Author: Jörn Kottmann <joern@apache.org>
>>        Date:   2017-06-27T08:19:19Z
>>
>>            Revert merging of sentiment work, no consent to merge it
>>
>>        ----
>>
>>
>>        ---
>>        If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
>>        reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
>>        enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
>>        contact infrastructure at infrastructure@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
>>        with INFRA.
>>        ---
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message