i'm currently in a meeting and will be starting to do some tests in ~1 hour or so.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Nan Zhu <zhunanmcg...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with Sean > > I just compiled spark core successfully with 7u71 in Mac OS X > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Josh Rosen <rosenvi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ah, that makes sense. I had forgotten that there was a JIRA for this: >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-4021 >> >> On October 21, 2014 at 10:08:58 AM, Patrick Wendell (pwend...@gmail.com) >> wrote: >> >> Josh - the errors that broke our build indicated that JDK5 was being >> used. Somehow the upgrade caused our build to use a much older Java >> version. See the JIRA for more details. >> >> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Josh Rosen <rosenvi...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > I find it concerning that there's a JDK version that breaks out build, >> since >> > we're supposed to support Java 7. Is 7u71 an upgrade or downgrade from >> the >> > JDK that we used before? Is there an easy way to fix our build so that >> it >> > compiles with 7u71's stricter settings? >> > >> > I'm not sure why the "New" PRB is failing here. It was originally >> created >> > as a clone of the main pull request builder job. I checked the >> configuration >> > history and confirmed that there aren't any settings that we've >> forgotten to >> > copy over (e.g. their configurations haven't diverged), so I'm not sure >> > what's causing this. >> > >> > - Josh >> > >> > On October 21, 2014 at 6:35:39 AM, Nan Zhu (zhunanmcg...@gmail.com) >> wrote: >> > >> > weird.....two buildings (one triggered by New, one triggered by Old) >> were >> > executed in the same node, amp-jenkins-slave-01, one compiles, one >> not... >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > -- >> > Nan Zhu >> > >> > >> > On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Nan Zhu wrote: >> > >> >> seems that all PRs built by NewSparkPRBuilder suffers from 7u71, while >> >> SparkPRBuilder is working fine >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Nan Zhu >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Cheng Lian wrote: >> >> >> >> > It's a new pull request builder written by Josh, integrated into our >> >> > state-of-the-art PR dashboard :) >> >> > >> >> > On 10/21/14 9:33 PM, Nan Zhu wrote: >> >> > > just curious...what is this "NewSparkPullRequestBuilder"? >> >> > > >> >> > > Best, >> >> > > >> >> > > -- >> >> > > Nan Zhu >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Cheng Lian wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Hm, seems that 7u71 comes back again. Observed similar Kinesis >> >> > > > compilation error just now: >> >> > > > >> https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/NewSparkPullRequestBuilder/410/consoleFull >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Checked Jenkins slave nodes, saw /usr/java/latest points to >> >> > > > jdk1.7.0_71. However, /usr/bin/javac -version says: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > Eclipse Java Compiler 0.894_R34x, 3.4.2 release, Copyright IBM >> >> > > > > Corp 2000, 2008. All rights reserved. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Which JDK is actually used by Jenkins? >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Cheng >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > On 10/21/14 8:28 AM, shane knapp wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > ok, so earlier today i installed a 2nd JDK within jenkins >> (7u71), >> >> > > > > which fixed the SparkR build but apparently made Spark itself >> quite unhappy. >> >> > > > > i removed that JDK, triggered a build ( >> >> > > > > >> https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/21943/console), >> >> >> > > > > and it compiled kinesis w/o dying a fiery death. apparently >> 7u71 is stricter >> >> > > > > when compiling. sad times. sorry about that! shane On Mon, Oct >> 20, 2014 at >> >> > > > > 5:16 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> (mailto: >> pwend...@gmail.com) >> >> > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > The failure is in the Kinesis compoent, can you reproduce >> this >> >> > > > > > if you build with -Pkinesis-asl? - Patrick On Mon, Oct 20, >> 2014 at 5:08 PM, >> >> > > > > > shane knapp <skn...@berkeley.edu> (mailto: >> skn...@berkeley.edu) wrote: >> >> > > > > > > hmm, strange. i'll take a look. On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at >> 5:11 >> >> > > > > > > PM, Nan Zhu <zhunanmcg...@gmail.com> (mailto: >> zhunanmcg...@gmail.com) wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > yes, I can compile locally, too but it seems that >> Jenkins is >> >> > > > > > > > not happy now... >> >> > > > > > > > >> https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/ All >> >> > > > > > > > failed to compile Best, -- Nan Zhu On Monday, October >> 20, 2014 at 7:56 PM, >> >> > > > > > > > Ted Yu wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > I performed build on latest master branch but didn't >> get >> >> > > > > > > > > compilation >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > error. >> >> > > > > > > > > FYI On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Nan Zhu >> >> > > > > > > > > <zhunanmcg...@gmail.com (mailto:zhunanmcg...@gmail.com) >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > (mailto:zhunanmcg...@gmail.com)> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > Hi, I just submitted a patch >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/2864/files >> >> > > > > > > > > > with one line change but the Jenkins told me it's >> failed >> >> > > > > > > > > > to compile on the unrelated >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > files? >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/21935/console >> >> > > > > > > > > > Best, Nan >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >
