+1, no known blockers.
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 12:49 AM DB Tsai wrote:
> +1 as well. Thanks.
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 7:39 AM Sean Owen wrote:
>
>> +1 , same response as to the last RC.
>> This looks like it includes the fix discussed last time, as well as a
>> few more small good fixes.
>>
+1.
Tom
On Monday, May 18, 2020, 08:05:24 AM CDT, Wenchen Fan
wrote:
+1, no known blockers.
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 12:49 AM DB Tsai wrote:
+1 as well. Thanks.
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 7:39 AM Sean Owen wrote:
+1 , same response as to the last RC.
This looks like it includes the fix
This RC does not include the correctness bug fix
https://github.com/apache/spark/commit/a4885f3654899bcb852183af70cc0a82e7dd81d0
which
is just after RC3 cut.
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 7:21 AM Tom Graves
wrote:
> +1.
>
> Tom
>
> On Monday, May 18, 2020, 08:05:24 AM CDT, Wenchen Fan
> wrote:
>
>
>
That is correct. I asked on the PR if that was ok with folks before I moved
forward with the RC and was told that it was ok. I believe that particular
bug is not a regression and is a long standing issue so we wouldn’t
normally block the release on it.
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 7:40 AM Xiao Li wrot
Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Spark version 3.0.0.
The vote is open until Thu May 21 11:59pm Pacific time and passes if a majority
+1 PMC votes are cast, with a minimum of 3 +1 votes.
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Spark 3.0.0
[ ] -1 Do not release this packa
Ah OK, I assumed from the timing that this was cut to include that commit.
I should have looked.
Yes, it is not strictly a regression so does not have to block the release
and this can pass. We can release 2.4.7 in a few months, too.
How important is the fix? If it's pretty important, it may still
Another two candidates for backporting that have come up since this RC are
SPARK-31692 & SPARK-31399. What are folks thoughts, should we roll an RC4?
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 2:13 PM Sean Owen wrote:
> Ah OK, I assumed from the timing that this was cut to include that commit.
> I should have look
I am changing my vote from +1 to +0.
Since Spark 3.0 is Scala 2.12 only, having a transitional 2.4.x
release with great support of Scala 2.12 is very important. I would
like to have [SPARK-31399][CORE] Support indylambda Scala closure in
ClosureCleaner backported. Without it, it might break users'
That seems like an important concern. I'm going to go ahead and vote -1 on
this RC and I'll roll a new RC once the IndyLambda support is backported
into the 2.4 branch.
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 2:58 PM DB Tsai wrote:
> I am changing my vote from +1 to +0.
>
> Since Spark 3.0 is Scala 2.12 only, h
Looks like the priority of SPARK-31706 [1] is incorrectly marked - it
sounds like a blocker, as SPARK-26785 [2] / SPARK-26956 [3] dropped the
feature of "update" on streaming output mode (as a result) and SPARK-31706
restores it. SPARK-31706 is not yet resolved, which may be valid reason to
roll a
Hi , I have a minikube cluster running in my local and I am trying to use
apache-spark in client mode with kubernetes and read a file in order to work. I
expect read a file but when a I’m trying to read with textfile =
sc.textFile("README.md") and then execute textfile.count() the output is
jav
Hi devs,
while dealing with SPARK-31706 [1] we figured out the streaming output mode
is only effective for stateful aggregation and not guaranteed on sink,
which could expose data loss issue. SPARK-31724 [2] is filed to track the
efforts on improving the streaming output mode.
Before we revisit t
Hi devs,
during experiment on complete mode I realized we left some incomplete code
parts on supporting aggregation for continuous mode. (shuffle & coalesce)
The work had been occurred around first half of 2018 and stopped, and no
work has been done for around 2 years (so I don't expect anyone is
13 matches
Mail list logo
