Oh darn - I missed this update. GRR, unfortunately I think this means I'll need to cut a new RC. Thanks for catching this Nick.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Nicholas Chammas <nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: > [Let me know if I should be posting these comments in a different thread.] > > Should the default Spark version in spark-ec2 be updated for this release? > > Nick > > > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Hey Nicholas, >> >> Thanks for this, we can merge in doc changes outside of the actual >> release timeline, so we'll make sure to loop those changes in before >> we publish the final 1.1 docs. >> >> - Patrick >> >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Nicholas Chammas >> <nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > There were several formatting and typographical errors in the SQL docs >> > that >> > I've fixed in this PR. Dunno if we want to roll that into the release. >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Okay I'll plan to add cdh4 binary as well for the final release! >> >> >> >> --- >> >> sent from my phone >> >> On Aug 29, 2014 8:26 AM, "Ye Xianjin" <advance...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > We just used CDH 4.7 for our production cluster. And I believe we >> >> > won't >> >> > use CDH 5 in the next year. >> >> > >> >> > Sent from my iPhone >> >> > >> >> > > On 2014年8月29日, at 14:39, Matei Zaharia <matei.zaha...@gmail.com> >> >> > > wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > Personally I'd actually consider putting CDH4 back if there are >> >> > > still >> >> > users on it. It's always better to be inclusive, and the convenience >> >> > of >> >> > a >> >> > one-click download is high. Do we have a sense on what % of CDH users >> >> > still >> >> > use CDH4? >> >> > > >> >> > > Matei >> >> > > >> >> > > On August 28, 2014 at 11:31:13 PM, Sean Owen (so...@cloudera.com) >> >> > > wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > (Copying my reply since I don't know if it goes to the mailing >> >> > > list) >> >> > > >> >> > > Great, thanks for explaining the reasoning. You're saying these >> >> > > aren't >> >> > > going into the final release? I think that moots any issue >> >> > > surrounding >> >> > > distributing them then. >> >> > > >> >> > > This is all I know of from the ASF: >> >> > > https://community.apache.org/projectIndependence.html I don't read >> >> > > it >> >> > > as expressly forbidding this kind of thing although you can see how >> >> > > it >> >> > > bumps up against the spirit. There's not a bright line -- what >> >> > > about >> >> > > Tomcat providing binaries compiled for Windows for example? does >> >> > > that >> >> > > favor an OS vendor? >> >> > > >> >> > > From this technical ASF perspective only the releases matter -- do >> >> > > what you want with snapshots and RCs. The only issue there is maybe >> >> > > releasing something different than was in the RC; is that at all >> >> > > confusing? Just needs a note. >> >> > > >> >> > > I think this theoretical issue doesn't exist if these binaries >> >> > > aren't >> >> > > released, so I see no reason to not proceed. >> >> > > >> >> > > The rest is a different question about whether you want to spend >> >> > > time >> >> > > maintaining this profile and candidate. The vendor already manages >> >> > > their build I think and -- and I don't know -- may even prefer not >> >> > > to >> >> > > have a different special build floating around. There's also the >> >> > > theoretical argument that this turns off other vendors from >> >> > > adopting >> >> > > Spark if it's perceived to be too connected to other vendors. I'd >> >> > > like >> >> > > to maximize Spark's distribution and there's some argument you do >> >> > > this >> >> > > by not making vendor profiles. But as I say a different question to >> >> > > just think about over time... >> >> > > >> >> > > (oh and PS for my part I think it's a good thing that CDH4 binaries >> >> > > were removed. I wasn't arguing for resurrecting them) >> >> > > >> >> > >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Patrick Wendell >> >> > >> <pwend...@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> Hey Sean, >> >> > >> >> >> > >> The reason there are no longer CDH-specific builds is that all >> >> > >> newer >> >> > >> versions of CDH and HDP work with builds for the upstream Hadoop >> >> > >> projects. I dropped CDH4 in favor of a newer Hadoop version (2.4) >> >> > >> and >> >> > >> the Hadoop-without-Hive (also 2.4) build. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> For MapR - we can't officially post those artifacts on ASF web >> >> > >> space >> >> > >> when we make the final release, we can only link to them as being >> >> > >> hosted by MapR specifically since they use non-compatible >> >> > >> licenses. >> >> > >> However, I felt that providing these during a testing period was >> >> > >> alright, with the goal of increasing test coverage. I couldn't >> >> > >> find >> >> > >> any policy against posting these on personal web space during RC >> >> > >> voting. However, we can remove them if there is one. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> Dropping CDH4 was more because it is now pretty old, but we can >> >> > >> add >> >> > >> it >> >> > >> back if people want. The binary packaging is a slightly separate >> >> > >> question from release votes, so I can always add more binary >> >> > >> packages >> >> > >> whenever. And on this, my main concern is covering the most >> >> > >> popular >> >> > >> Hadoop versions to lower the bar for users to build and test >> >> > >> Spark. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> - Patrick >> >> > >> >> >> > >>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >>> +1 I tested the source and Hadoop 2.4 release. Checksums and >> >> > >>> signatures are OK. Compiles fine with Java 8 on OS X. Tests... >> >> > >>> don't >> >> > >>> fail any more than usual. >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> FWIW I've also been using the 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT for some time in >> >> > >>> another >> >> > >>> project and have encountered no problems. >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> I notice that the 1.1.0 release removes the CDH4-specific build, >> >> > >>> but >> >> > >>> adds two MapR-specific builds. Compare with >> >> > >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/spark/spark-1.0.2/ I >> >> > >>> commented on the commit: >> >> > >>> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > https://github.com/apache/spark/commit/ceb19830b88486faa87ff41e18d03ede713a73cc >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> I'm in favor of removing all vendor-specific builds. This change >> >> > >>> *looks* a bit funny as there was no JIRA (?) and appears to swap >> >> > >>> one >> >> > >>> vendor for another. Of course there's nothing untoward going on, >> >> > >>> but >> >> > >>> what was the reasoning? It's best avoided, and MapR already >> >> > >>> distributes Spark just fine, no? >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> This is a gray area with ASF projects. I mention it as well >> >> > >>> because >> >> > >>> it >> >> > >>> came up with Apache Flink recently >> >> > >>> ( >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > http://mail-archives.eu.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-flink-dev/201408.mbox/%3CCANC1h_u%3DN0YKFu3pDaEVYz5ZcQtjQnXEjQA2ReKmoS%2Bye7%3Do%3DA%40mail.gmail.com%3E >> >> > ) >> >> > >>> Another vendor rightly noted this could look like favoritism. >> >> > >>> They >> >> > >>> changed to remove vendor releases. >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Patrick Wendell >> >> > >>>> <pwend...@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >>>> Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Spark >> >> > version 1.1.0! >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> The tag to be voted on is v1.1.0-rc2 (commit 711aebb3): >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=spark.git;a=commit;h=711aebb329ca28046396af1e34395a0df92b5327 >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> The release files, including signatures, digests, etc. can be >> >> > >>>> found >> >> > at: >> >> > >>>> http://people.apache.org/~pwendell/spark-1.1.0-rc2/ >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> Release artifacts are signed with the following key: >> >> > >>>> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/pwendell.asc >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> The staging repository for this release can be found at: >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >> >> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachespark-1029/ >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> The documentation corresponding to this release can be found at: >> >> > >>>> http://people.apache.org/~pwendell/spark-1.1.0-rc2-docs/ >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Spark 1.1.0! >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> The vote is open until Monday, September 01, at 03:11 UTC and >> >> > >>>> passes >> >> > if >> >> > >>>> a majority of at least 3 +1 PMC votes are cast. >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Spark 1.1.0 >> >> > >>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ... >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> To learn more about Apache Spark, please see >> >> > >>>> http://spark.apache.org/ >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> == Regressions fixed since RC1 == >> >> > >>>> LZ4 compression issue: >> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-3277 >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> == What justifies a -1 vote for this release? == >> >> > >>>> This vote is happening very late into the QA period compared >> >> > >>>> with >> >> > >>>> previous votes, so -1 votes should only occur for significant >> >> > >>>> regressions from 1.0.2. Bugs already present in 1.0.X will not >> >> > >>>> block >> >> > >>>> this release. >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> == What default changes should I be aware of? == >> >> > >>>> 1. The default value of "spark.io.compression.codec" is now >> >> > >>>> "snappy" >> >> > >>>> --> Old behavior can be restored by switching to "lzf" >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> 2. PySpark now performs external spilling during aggregations. >> >> > >>>> --> Old behavior can be restored by setting >> >> > >>>> "spark.shuffle.spill" >> >> > >>>> to >> >> > "false". >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >> >> > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org >> >> > > >> >> > >> > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
