Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

In case it wasn't obvious by the appearance of RC3, this vote failed. On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Michael Armbrust wrote: > Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Spark version > 2.1.0. The vote is open until Sun, April 2nd, 2018 at 16:30 PST and

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

I think this is Java 8 v Java 7, if you look at the previous build you see a lot of the same missing classes but tagged as "warning" rather than "error". I think all in all it makes sense to stick to JDK7 to build the legacy build which have been built with it previously. If there is consensus on

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

I don't think this is an example of Java 8 javadoc being more strict; it is not finding classes, not complaining about syntax. (Hyukjin cleaned up all of the javadoc 8 errors in master, and they're different and much more extensive!) It wouldn't necessarily break anything to build with Java 8

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

ng pandoc on whichever machine is used for >>>>>> >>>>> packaging. I thought that was generally done on the machine of >>>>>> the person >>>>>> >>>>> rolling the release so I wasn't sure it made sense as a JIRA, >&

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

sense as a JIRA, >>>>> but from >>>>> >>>>> chatting with Josh it sounds like that part might be on of the >>>>> Jenkins >>>>> >>>>> workers - is there a fixed one that is used? >>>>> >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

d one that is used? >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Regardless I'll file a JIRA for this when I get back in front of >>>> my >>>> >>>>> desktop (~1 hour or so). >>>> >>>>> >>>> >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

chael Armbrust >>> >>>>> <mich...@databricks.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Thanks for the comments everyone. This vote fails. Here's how I >>> >>>>>> think we should proceed: >>> >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

This vote fails. Here's how I >> >>>>>> think we should proceed: >> >>>>>> - [SPARK-20197] - SparkR CRAN - appears to be resolved >> >>>>>> - [SPARK-XXXX] - Python packaging - Holden, please file a JIRA and >> >>>&

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

gt;>> >> >>>>>> Thanks for the comments everyone. This vote fails. Here's how I >> >>>>>> think we should proceed: >> >>>>>> - [SPARK-20197] - SparkR CRAN - appears to be resolved >> >>>>>>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

a JIRA and > >>>>>> report if this is a regression and if there is an easy fix that we > should > >>>>>> wait for. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> For all the other test failures, please take the time to look > through > >>&

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

t;>> JIRA and open an issue if one does not already exist so that we can triage >>>>> if these are just environmental issues. If I don't hear any objections >>>>> I'm >>>>> going to go ahead with RC3 tomorrow. >>>>> >>>>>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

ections I'm >>>> going to go ahead with RC3 tomorrow. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Felix Cheung <felixcheun...@hotmail.com >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> -1 >>>> sorry, found an issue with S

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

> ---------- >>> *From:* holden.ka...@gmail.com <holden.ka...@gmail.com> on behalf of >>> Holden Karau <hol...@pigscanfly.ca> >>> *Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2017 6:25:20 PM >>> *To:* Xiao Li >>> *Cc:* Michael Armbr

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

- >> *From:* holden.ka...@gmail.com <holden.ka...@gmail.com> on behalf of >> Holden Karau <hol...@pigscanfly.ca> >> *Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2017 6:25:20 PM >> *To:* Xiao Li >> *Cc:* Michael Armbrust; dev@spark.apache.org >> *Subject:* Re: [VOTE] Apach

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

> *Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2017 6:25:20 PM > *To:* Xiao Li > *Cc:* Michael Armbrust; dev@spark.apache.org > *Subject:* Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2) > > -1 (non-binding) > > Python packaging doesn't seem to have quite worked out (looking > at PKG-INFO t

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

t;> > >> -1 > >> sorry, found an issue with SparkR CRAN check. > >> Opened SPARK-20197 and working on fix. > >> > >> > >> From: holden.ka...@gmail.com <holden.ka...@gmail.com> on behalf of > H

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

d working on fix. >> >> >> From: holden.ka...@gmail.com <holden.ka...@gmail.com> on behalf of Holden >> Karau <hol...@pigscanfly.ca> >> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 6:25:20 PM >> To: Xiao Li >> Cc: Michael Armbrust; dev@sp

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

l...@pigscanfly.ca> > *Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2017 6:25:20 PM > *To:* Xiao Li > *Cc:* Michael Armbrust; dev@spark.apache.org > *Subject:* Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2) > > -1 (non-binding) > > Python packaging doesn't seem to have quite worked out (looking > at

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

ael Armbrust; dev@spark.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2) -1 (non-binding) Python packaging doesn't seem to have quite worked out (looking at PKG-INFO the description is "Description: ! missing pandoc do not upload to PyPI "), ideally it would be nice to

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

.apache.org> Date: 2017/04/02 18:18 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2) That backport is fine, for another RC even in my opinion, but it's not a regression. It's a JDK bug really. 2.1.0 would have failed too. On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 8:20 AM Kazuaki Ishizaki <ishiz...@jp.i

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

That backport is fine, for another RC even in my opinion, but it's not a regression. It's a JDK bug really. 2.1.0 would have failed too. On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 8:20 AM Kazuaki Ishizaki wrote: > -1 (non-binding) > > I tested it on Ubuntu 16.04 and openjdk8 on ppc64le. I got

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

> To: "dev@spark.apache.org" <dev@spark.apache.org> Date: 2017/03/31 08:10 Subject:[VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2) Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Spark version 2.1.0. The vote is open until Sun, April 2nd, 2018 at 16:30 PST and passes if a

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

-1 (non-binding) Python packaging doesn't seem to have quite worked out (looking at PKG-INFO the description is "Description: ! missing pandoc do not upload to PyPI "), ideally it would be nice to have this as a version we upgrade to PyPi. Building this on my own machine results in a

Re: [VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

+1 Xiao 2017-03-30 16:09 GMT-07:00 Michael Armbrust : > Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Spark version > 2.1.0. The vote is open until Sun, April 2nd, 2018 at 16:30 PST and > passes if a majority of at least 3 +1 PMC votes are cast. > > [ ] +1

[VOTE] Apache Spark 2.1.1 (RC2)

Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Spark version 2.1.0. The vote is open until Sun, April 2nd, 2018 at 16:30 PST and passes if a majority of at least 3 +1 PMC votes are cast. [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Spark 2.1.1 [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...