Hi, I have migrated HashingTF from mllib to ml, and wait for review.
see:
[SPARK-21748][ML] Migrate the implementation of HashingTF from MLlib to ML
#18998
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/18998
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Marco Gaido wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I saw that there are several
Oh and to be clear part of my +1 is dockerized Spark builds would simplify
a lot of headaches we face trying to coordinate changes on the PySpark side
(it's not just oooh shiny faster build times, although that's pretty
compelling in its self).
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Holden Karau wrote:
Just wanting to +1 this idea. One potential option would be to look at
migrating away from the AMP Lab Jenkins infra into the ASF infra. I've
added Josh, Shane, and Sean to the CC line explicitly since I think they
might have opinions about this.
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Xin Lu wrote:
+1
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Michael Armbrust
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Xiao Li wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> 2017-11-04 11:00 GMT-07:00 Burak Yavuz :
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 10:02 PM, vaquar khan
>>> wrote:
>>>
+1
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 8:14
Hi, we do still want to do this migration; it's just been a bit stalled due
to low bandwidth. There are still a few feature parity items which need to
be completed, so the deprecation will likely not happen until after 2.3.
Joseph
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:38 AM, 颜发才(Yan Facai) wrote:
> Hi, I h
Faster tests would be great. I recall that the straightforward ways to
parallelize via Maven haven't worked because many tests collide with one
another. Is this about running each module's tests in a container? that
should work.
I can see how this is becoming essential for repeatable and reliable
+1
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Joseph Bradley
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Michael Armbrust
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Xiao Li wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> 2017-11-04 11:00 GMT-07:00 Burak Yavuz :
>>>
+1
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 10:0
True, I think we've seen that the Amp Lab Jenkins needs to be more focused
on running AMP Lab projects, and while I don't know how difficult the ASF
Jenkins is I assume it might be an easier place to make changes going
forward? (Of course this could be the grass is greener on the other side
and I d
My understanding is that AMP actually can provide more resources or adapt
changes, while ASF needs to manage 200+ projects and it's hard to
accommodate much. I could be wrong though.
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Holden Karau wrote:
> True, I think we've seen that the Amp Lab Jenkins needs to
That makes sense, in that case do we know how hard it would be to make the
necessary hands to the AMP Lab Jenkins to support this?
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:04 PM Reynold Xin wrote:
> My understanding is that AMP actually can provide more resources or adapt
> changes, while ASF needs to manage 20
We actually have some immediate needs for custom config for some upcoming
integration tests.
I don't know if such changes are possible in ASF Jenkins but the work is in
progress in RISELab Jenkins :)
From: holden.ka...@gmail.com on behalf of Holden Karau
Sen
The vote has passed with the following +1s:
Reynold Xin*
Debasish Das
Noman Khan
Wenchen Fan*
Matei Zaharia*
Weichen Xu
Vaquar Khan
Burak Yavuz
Xiao Li
Tom Graves*
Michael Armbrust*
Joseph Bradley*
Shixiong Zhu*
And the following +0s:
Sean Owen*
Thanks for the feedback!
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017
+1, looking forward to more design details of this feature.
Thanks
Jerry
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Shixiong(Ryan) Zhu
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Joseph Bradley
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Michael Armbrust
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Sat
13 matches
Mail list logo
