Thanks for letting me know, Jungtaek!
OK, I'll start to test branch-2.3 by myself and prepare the RC2 package
this weekend.
I'll open the next vote then.
Best,
Takeshi
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 8:54 AM Jungtaek Lim wrote:
> Please proceed without SPARK-26154 given that it is unlikely expected to
Please proceed without SPARK-26154 given that it is unlikely expected to
get merged in one week. The patch needs some more work, and we still
haven't reached consensus on the approach.
Btw, could one of committer justify and modify the priority and correctness
label on SPARK-26154? I mentioned
If there is no objection in following responses, I'll wait one more week
while watching that PR progress.
Once that PR merged, I'll start to prepare the next vote.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 4:57 AM Jungtaek Lim wrote:
> Regarding PR 23634, it is waiting for getting consensus on the approach
>
Regarding PR 23634, it is waiting for getting consensus on the approach for
the fix, as well as it also needs to have some time to clean up some code
and move focus to concern backward compatibility. I'm postponing these
works since I haven't reached consensus on the approach.
So it may take some
More analysis at https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/23634
It's not a regression, though it does relate to correctness, although
somewhat niche.
TD, Jose et al, is this a Blocker? and is the fix probably reliable
enough to commit now?
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:59 AM Sandeep Katta
wrote:
>
> I
I feel this https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-26154 bug should be
fixed in this release as it is related to data correctness
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 17:55, Takeshi Yamamuro
wrote:
> Hi, all
>
> I checked the two issues below had been resolved and there is no blocker
> for branch-2.3
Hi, all
I checked the two issues below had been resolved and there is no blocker
for branch-2.3 now, so I'll start prepare RC2 tomorrow.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-26682
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-26709
If there are some blockers and critical issues in
Thanks, all.
I'll start a new vote as rc2 after the two issues above resolved.
Best,
Takeshi
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 7:59 AM Xiao Li wrote:
> -1
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-26709 is another blocker
> ticket that returns incorrect results.
>
>
> Marcelo Vanzin
-1
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-26709 is another blocker ticket
that returns incorrect results.
Marcelo Vanzin 于2019年1月23日周三 下午12:01写道：
> -1 too.
>
> I just upgraded https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-26682 to
> blocker. It's a small fix and we should make it in 2.3.3.
-1 too.
I just upgraded https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-26682 to
blocker. It's a small fix and we should make it in 2.3.3.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:49 PM Takeshi Yamamuro wrote:
>
> Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Spark version
> 2.3.3.
>
> The vote is
-1
Agreed with Anton that this bug will potentially corrupt the data
silently. As he is ready to submit a PR, I'll suggest to wait to
include the fix. Thanks!
Sincerely,
DB Tsai
--
Web: https://www.dbtsai.com
PGP Key ID: 0x5CED8B896A6BDFA0
It is a correctness bug. I have updated the description with an example. It
has been there for a while, so I am not sure about the priority.
ср, 23 янв. 2019 г. в 14:48, Sean Owen :
> I'm not clear if it's a correctness bug from that description, and if
> it's not a regression, no it does not
I'm not clear if it's a correctness bug from that description, and if
it's not a regression, no it does not need to go into 2.3.3. If it's a
real bug, sure it can be merged to 2.3.x.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 7:54 AM Anton Okolnychyi
wrote:
>
> Recently, I came across this bug:
>
> HOME_URL="https://amazonlinux.com/;
>>> > $ java -version
>>> > openjdk version "1.8.0_191"
>>> > OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_191-b12)
>>> > OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.191-b12, mixed mode)
>>>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 9:53 AM Felix Cheung
> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> My focus is on R (sorry couldn’t cross validate what’s Sean is seeing)
> >>
> >> tested:
> >> reviewed doc
2019 at 9:53 AM Felix Cheung
> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> My focus is on R (sorry couldn’t cross validate what’s Sean is seeing)
>>
>> tested:
>> reviewed doc
>> R package test
>> win-builder, r-hub
>> Tarball/package signature
>&g
n R (sorry couldn’t cross validate what’s Sean is seeing)
>
> tested:
> reviewed doc
> R package test
> win-builder, r-hub
> Tarball/package signature
>
>
>
> ----------
> *From:* Takeshi Yamamuro
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 17, 2019 6:49 PM
&
] Release Apache Spark 2.3.3 (RC1)
Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Spark version 2.3.3.
The vote is open until January 20 8:00PM (PST) and passes if a majority +1 PMC
votes are cast, with
a minimum of 3 +1 votes.
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Spark 2.3.3
[ ] -1 Do
I'm getting different errors when I run on a different machine; not
quite the same. Things like:
[ERROR] Errors:
[ERROR] JavaTfIdfSuite.tfIdf:44 » Spark Job aborted due to stage
failure: Task 0 in st...
[ERROR] JavaTfIdfSuite.tfIdfMinimumDocumentFrequency:64 » Spark Job
aborted due to sta...
Hi, sean,
I run these tests again though, these tests passed on my AWS env.
But, I notice these streaming tests are a little flaky though...
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 1:51 AM Sean Owen wrote:
> The release itself looks OK. I'm getting, as before, a lot of errors
> on the machine I'm building
The release itself looks OK. I'm getting, as before, a lot of errors
on the machine I'm building on. Is anyone else seeing this? if not I'm
going to scrap the env and try something new. Errors like:
- event ordering *** FAILED ***
The code passed to failAfter did not complete within 10
Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Spark version
2.3.3.
The vote is open until January 20 8:00PM (PST) and passes if a majority +1
PMC votes are cast, with
a minimum of 3 +1 votes.
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Spark 2.3.3
[ ] -1 Do not release this package
22 matches
Mail list logo
