Re: Auto-linking from PRs to Jira tickets

Oh got it. That sounds cool. On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 6:25 PM Nicholas Chammas wrote: > Right, what I'm talking about is linking in the other direction, from > GitHub to Jira. > > i.e. you can type "SPARK-1234" in plain text on a PR, and GitHub will > automatically turn it into a link to the

Re: Auto-linking from PRs to Jira tickets

Right, what I'm talking about is linking in the other direction, from GitHub to Jira. i.e. you can type "SPARK-1234" in plain text on a PR, and GitHub will automatically turn it into a link to the appropriate ticket on Jira. On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 8:21 PM Holden Karau wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar

Re: Auto-linking from PRs to Jira tickets

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 2:14 PM Nicholas Chammas wrote: > This is a feature of GitHub itself and would auto-link directly from the > PR back to Jira. > > I haven't looked at the PR dashboard in a while, but I believe you're > referencing a feature of the dashboard

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (binding) on the original proposal. On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:32 PM Michael Heuer wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > I am disappointed however that this only mentions API and not dependencies > and transitive dependencies. > I think upgrading dependencies continues to be reasonable. > > As Spark

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 4:55 PM Reynold Xin wrote: > +1 > > > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 3:53 PM, John Zhuge wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:32 PM Michael Heuer wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> I am disappointed however that this only mentions API and not

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 3:53 PM, John Zhuge < jzh...@apache.org > wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:32 PM Michael Heuer < heuermh@ gmail. com ( > heue...@gmail.com ) > wrote: > > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> >> I am disappointed however that this only mentions API

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (non-binding) On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:32 PM Michael Heuer wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > I am disappointed however that this only mentions API and not dependencies > and transitive dependencies. > > As Spark does not provide separation between its runtime classpath and the > classpath used

Re: Auto-linking from PRs to Jira tickets

This is a feature of GitHub itself and would auto-link directly from the PR back to Jira. I haven't looked at the PR dashboard in a while, but I believe you're referencing a feature of the dashboard that people won't get unless they look at the dashboard itself.

Re: Auto-linking from PRs to Jira tickets

I think we used to do this with the same bot that runs the PR dashboard, is it no longer working? On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 12:28 PM Nicholas Chammas wrote: > https://github.blog/2019-10-14-introducing-autolink-references/ > > GitHub has a feature for auto-linking from PRs to external tickets.

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (non-binding) I am disappointed however that this only mentions API and not dependencies and transitive dependencies. As Spark does not provide separation between its runtime classpath and the classpath used by applications, I believe Spark's dependencies and transitive dependencies should

Auto-linking from PRs to Jira tickets

https://github.blog/2019-10-14-introducing-autolink-references/ GitHub has a feature for auto-linking from PRs to external tickets. It's only available for their paid plans, but perhaps Apache has some arrangement with them where we can get that feature. Since we include Jira ticket numbers in

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (binding) On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 11:49 AM Xingbo Jiang wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Cheers, > > Xingbo > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 9:35 AM Xiao Li wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> Xiao >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 8:33 AM Denny Lee wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (non-binding) Cheers, Xingbo On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 9:35 AM Xiao Li wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Xiao > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 8:33 AM Denny Lee wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:59 AM Hyukjin Kwon wrote: >> >>> The proposal itself seems good as the factors to

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (binding) Xiao On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 8:33 AM Denny Lee wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:59 AM Hyukjin Kwon wrote: > >> The proposal itself seems good as the factors to consider, Thanks Michael. >> >> Several concerns mentioned look good points, in particular: >> >> >

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (non-binding) On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:59 AM Hyukjin Kwon wrote: > The proposal itself seems good as the factors to consider, Thanks Michael. > > Several concerns mentioned look good points, in particular: > > > ... assuming that this is for public stable APIs, not APIs that are > marked as

Re: Keytab, Proxy User & Principal

I just wanted to bump this to see if anyone has any opinions on this? On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 3:20 PM Lars Francke wrote: > Hi, > > I understand that we forbid specifying "principal" & "proxy user" at the > same time because the current logic would just stage the keytab and the > proxy user

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

The proposal itself seems good as the factors to consider, Thanks Michael. Several concerns mentioned look good points, in particular: > ... assuming that this is for public stable APIs, not APIs that are marked as unstable, evolving, etc. ... I would like to confirm this. We already have API

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (non-binding) Bests, Takeshi On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 4:52 PM Gengliang Wang wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Gengliang > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 12:22 AM Matei Zaharia > wrote: > >> +1 as well. >> >> Matei >> >> On Mar 9, 2020, at 12:05 AM, Wenchen Fan wrote: >> >> +1 (binding), assuming

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (non-binding) Gengliang On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 12:22 AM Matei Zaharia wrote: > +1 as well. > > Matei > > On Mar 9, 2020, at 12:05 AM, Wenchen Fan wrote: > > +1 (binding), assuming that this is for public stable APIs, not APIs that > are marked as unstable, evolving, etc. > > On Mon, Mar 9,

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 as well. Matei > On Mar 9, 2020, at 12:05 AM, Wenchen Fan wrote: > > +1 (binding), assuming that this is for public stable APIs, not APIs that are > marked as unstable, evolving, etc. > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:10 AM Ismaël Mejía > wrote: > +1 (non-binding) >

Re: [VOTE] Amend Spark's Semantic Versioning Policy

+1 (binding), assuming that this is for public stable APIs, not APIs that are marked as unstable, evolving, etc. On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:10 AM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Michael's section on the trade-offs of maintaining / removing an API are > one of > the best reads I have