Github user jaceklaskowski commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13329#issuecomment-70008
Thanks @rxin and @srowen for your help and patience! I'll close the pull
request.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user jaceklaskowski closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13329
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the
Github user srowen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13329#issuecomment-56093
In roughly descending order, here are possible positive results of a change:
- Fix a bug
- Improve performance
- Improve tests
- Clarify user-visible
Github user rxin commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13329#issuecomment-45541
In this cases it seems like the value is pretty small. I have another pr
that does some api annotation cleanups. I will port your typo fixes over to
that.
---
If your
Github user jaceklaskowski commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13329#issuecomment-42718
How am I supposed to read this? Do you want me to...forget about the
changes? All of them or just some? Which one would you accept since @srowen
said: "Some of
Github user rxin commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13329#issuecomment-28694
I'm with @srowen on this one. Not sure about the "improvements" here are
indeed improvements.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user jaceklaskowski commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13329#issuecomment-222140528
The issue with `nonEmpty` is that you could easily miss the negation (and
that's why Scala offers `nonEmpty`). I don't think it's the final solution, but
Github user jaceklaskowski commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13329#discussion_r64900321
--- Diff:
yarn/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/scheduler/cluster/YarnScheduler.scala ---
@@ -31,9 +31,8 @@ private[spark] class YarnScheduler(sc:
Github user rxin commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13329#discussion_r64859729
--- Diff:
yarn/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/scheduler/cluster/YarnScheduler.scala ---
@@ -31,9 +31,8 @@ private[spark] class YarnScheduler(sc: SparkContext)
Github user srowen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13329#issuecomment-221979133
Some of this is OK, some of it isn't an improvement. I don't think we
should just change a few instances of format to interpolation, nor do I think
it is necessarily
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13329#issuecomment-221974373
Merged build finished. Test PASSed.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13329#issuecomment-221974375
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13329#issuecomment-221974106
**[Test build #59395 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/59395/consoleFull)**
for PR 13329 at commit
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13329#issuecomment-221945121
**[Test build #59395 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/59395/consoleFull)**
for PR 13329 at commit
GitHub user jaceklaskowski opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13329
[CORE][SQL][MINOR] Scaladoc fixes + string interpolation
## What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Scaladoc fixes + string interpolation for logging
## How was
15 matches
Mail list logo
