Doc readiness vs releasability

-> new subject I'll send my result of testing the RC separately On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 11:58 PM, Michael Armbrust wrote: > > I'm only suggesting that we shouldn't delay testing of the actual bits, or > wait to iterate on another RC. Ideally docs should come out with the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Spark 1.6.0 (RC2)

I'll kick off the voting with a +1. On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Michael Armbrust wrote: > Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Spark version > 1.6.0! > > The vote is open until Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 6:00 UTC and passes > if a majority

[VOTE] Release Apache Spark 1.6.0 (RC2)

Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Spark version 1.6.0! The vote is open until Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 6:00 UTC and passes if a majority of at least 3 +1 PMC votes are cast. [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Spark 1.6.0 [ ] -1 Do not release this package because

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Spark 1.6.0 (RC2)

-1 For me the docs are not displaying except for the first page, for example http://people.apache.org/~pwendell/spark-releases/spark-1.6.0-rc2-docs/mllib-guide.html is a blank page. This is because of SPARK-12199 : Element[W|w]iseProductExample.scala

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Spark 1.6.0 (RC2)

Thanks Ben, but as I said in the first email, docs are published separately from the release, so this isn't a valid reason to down vote the RC. We just provide them to help with testing. I'll ask the mllib guys to take a look at that patch though. On Dec 12, 2015 9:44 AM, "Benjamin Fradet"

RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Spark 1.6.0 (RC2)

+1 (non binding) Tested with different samples. RegardsJB  Sent from my Samsung device Original message From: Michael Armbrust Date: 12/12/2015 18:39 (GMT+01:00) To: dev@spark.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Spark 1.6.0 (RC2)

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Spark 1.6.0 (RC2)

+1 Critical and blocker issues of SQL have been addressed. On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Michael Armbrust wrote: > I'll kick off the voting with a +1. > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Michael Armbrust > wrote: > >> Please vote on

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Spark 1.6.0 (RC2)

+1 On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Michael Armbrust wrote: > Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Spark version > 1.6.0! > > The vote is open until Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 6:00 UTC and passes > if a majority of at least 3 +1 PMC votes are

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Spark 1.6.0 (RC2)

I've heard this argument before, but don't quite get it. Documentation is part of a release, and I believe is something we're voting on here too, and therefore needs to 'work' as documentation. We could not release this HTML to the Apache site, so I think that does actually mean the artifacts

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Spark 1.6.0 (RC2)

(I can't -1 this.) I do agree that docs have been treated as if separate from releases in the past. With more maturity in the release process, I'm questioning that now, as I don't think it's normal. It would be a reason to release or not release this particular tarball, so a vote thread is the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Spark 1.6.0 (RC2)

> > I'm surprised you're suggesting there's not a coupling between a release's > code and the docs for that release. If a release happens and some time > later docs come out, that has some effect on people's usage. > I'm only suggesting that we shouldn't delay testing of the actual bits, or wait

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Spark 1.6.0 (RC2)

Sean, if you would like to -1 the release you are certainly entitled to, but in the past we have never held a release for documentation only issues. If you'd like to change the policy of the project I'm not sure that a voting thread is the right place to do it. I think the right question here,