SPARK-1817 will cause users to get incorrect results and RDD.zip is common usage . This should be the highest priority. I think we should fix the bug,and should also test the previous release ------------------ Original ------------------ From: "Patrick Wendell";<pwend...@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, May 14, 2014 03:02 PM To: "dev@spark.apache.org"<dev@spark.apache.org>;
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Spark 1.0.0 (rc5) Hey @witgo - those bugs are not severe enough to block the release, but it would be nice to get them fixed. At this point we are focused on severe bugs with an immediate fix, or regressions from previous versions of Spark. Anything that misses this release will get merged into the branch-1.0 branch and make it into the 1.0.1 release, so people will have access to it. On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 5:32 PM, witgo <wi...@qq.com> wrote: > -1 > The following bug should be fixed: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-1817 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-1712 > > > ------------------ Original ------------------ > From: "Patrick Wendell";<pwend...@gmail.com>; > Date: Wed, May 14, 2014 04:07 AM > To: "dev@spark.apache.org"<dev@spark.apache.org>; > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Spark 1.0.0 (rc5) > > > > Hey all - there were some earlier RC's that were not presented to the > dev list because issues were found with them. Also, there seems to be > some issues with the reliability of the dev list e-mail. Just a heads > up. > > I'll lead with a +1 for this. > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Nan Zhu <zhunanmcg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> just curious, where is rc4 VOTE? >> >> I searched my gmail but didn't find that? >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > The release files, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at: >>> > http://people.apache.org/~pwendell/spark-1.0.0-rc5/ >>> >>> Good news is that the sigs, MD5 and SHA are all correct. >>> >>> Tiny note: the Maven artifacts use SHA1, while the binary artifacts >>> use SHA512, which took me a bit of head-scratching to figure out. >>> >>> If another RC comes out, I might suggest making it SHA1 everywhere? >>> But there is nothing wrong with these signatures and checksums. >>> >>> Now to look at the contents... >>> > . .
