Krishna, I tested your linear regression example. For linear regression, we changed its objective function from 1/n * \|A x - b\|_2^2 to 1/(2n) * \|Ax - b\|_2^2 to be consistent with common least squares formulations. It means you could re-produce the same result by multiplying the step size by 2. This is not a problem if both run until convergence (if not blow up). However, in your example, a very small step size is chosen and it didn't converge in 100 iterations. In this case, the step size matters. I will put a note in the migration guide. Thanks! -Xiangrui
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > I'm +1 as I have not heard of any one else seeing the Hive test > failure, which is likely a test issue rather than code issue anyway, > and not a blocker. > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: >> Although the problem is small, especially if indeed the essential docs >> changes are following just a couple days behind the final release, I >> mean, why the rush if they're essential? wait a couple days, finish >> them, make the release. >> >> Answer is, I think these changes aren't actually essential given the >> comment from tdas, so: just mark these Critical? (although ... they do >> say they're changes for the 1.3 release, so kind of funny to get to >> them for 1.3.x or 1.4, but that's not important now.) >> >> I thought that Blocker really meant Blocker in this project, as I've >> been encouraged to use it to mean "don't release without this." I >> think we should use it that way. Just thinking of it as "extra >> Critical" doesn't add anything. I don't think Documentation should be >> special-cased as less important, and I don't think there's confusion >> if Blocker means what it says, so I'd 'fix' that way. >> >> If nobody sees the Hive failure I observed, and if we can just zap >> those "Blockers" one way or the other, +1 >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Sean, >>> >>> The docs are distributed and consumed in a fundamentally different way >>> than Spark code itself. So we've always considered the "deadline" for >>> doc changes to be when the release is finally posted. >>> >>> If there are small inconsistencies with the docs present in the source >>> code for that release tag, IMO that doesn't matter much since we don't >>> even distribute the docs with Spark's binary releases and virtually no >>> one builds and hosts the docs on their own (that I am aware of, at >>> least). Perhaps we can recommend if people want to build the doc >>> sources that they should always grab the head of the most recent >>> release branch, to set expectations accordingly. >>> >>> In the past we haven't considered it worth holding up the release >>> process for the purpose of the docs. It just doesn't make sense since >>> they are consumed "as a service". If we decide to change this >>> convention, it would mean shipping our releases later, since we >>> could't pipeline the doc finalization with voting. >>> >>> - Patrick >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: >>>> Given the title and tagging, it sounds like there could be some >>>> must-have doc changes to go with what is being released as 1.3. It can >>>> be finished later, and published later, but then the docs source >>>> shipped with the release doesn't match the site, and until then, 1.3 >>>> is released without some "must-have" docs for 1.3 on the site. >>>> >>>> The real question to me is: are there any further, absolutely >>>> essential doc changes that need to accompany 1.3 or not? >>>> >>>> If not, just resolve these. If there are, then it seems like the >>>> release has to block on them. If there are some docs that should have >>>> gone in for 1.3, but didn't, but aren't essential, well I suppose it >>>> bears thinking about how to not slip as much work, but it doesn't >>>> block. >>>> >>>> I think Documentation issues certainly can be a blocker and shouldn't >>>> be specially ignored. >>>> >>>> >>>> BTW the UISeleniumSuite issue is a real failure, but I do not think it >>>> is serious: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-6205 It isn't >>>> a regression from 1.2.x, but only affects tests, and only affects a >>>> subset of build profiles. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Hey Sean, >>>>> >>>>>> SPARK-5310 Update SQL programming guide for 1.3 >>>>>> SPARK-5183 Document data source API >>>>>> SPARK-6128 Update Spark Streaming Guide for Spark 1.3 >>>>> >>>>> For these, the issue is that they are documentation JIRA's, which >>>>> don't need to be timed exactly with the release vote, since we can >>>>> update the documentation on the website whenever we want. In the past >>>>> I've just mentally filtered these out when considering RC's. I see a >>>>> few options here: >>>>> >>>>> 1. We downgrade such issues away from Blocker (more clear, but we risk >>>>> loosing them in the fray if they really are things we want to have >>>>> before the release is posted). >>>>> 2. We provide a filter to the community that excludes 'Documentation' >>>>> issues and shows all other blockers for 1.3. We can put this on the >>>>> wiki, for instance. >>>>> >>>>> Which do you prefer? >>>>> >>>>> - Patrick > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
