Re: Upgrade to spark 1.0.x
ok. merging and dropping spark 1.0.x branch from apache as well. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Peng Cheng wrote: > +1 > > 1.0.0 is recommended. Many release after 1.0.1 has a short test cycle and > 1.0.2 apparently reverted many fix for causing more serious problem. > > > On 14-08-09 04:51 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Until we release a version that uses spark, we should stay with what helps >> us. Once a release goes out then tracking whichever version of spark that >> the big distros put out becomes more important. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Pat Ferrel wrote: >> >> +1 >>> >>> Seems like we ought to keep up to the bleeding edge until the next Mahout >>> release, that’s when the pain of upgrade gets spread much wider. In fact >>> if >>> Spark gets moved to Scala 2.11 before our release we probably should >>> consider upgrading Scala too. >>> >> >
Re: Upgrade to spark 1.0.x
+1 1.0.0 is recommended. Many release after 1.0.1 has a short test cycle and 1.0.2 apparently reverted many fix for causing more serious problem. On 14-08-09 04:51 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: +1 Until we release a version that uses spark, we should stay with what helps us. Once a release goes out then tracking whichever version of spark that the big distros put out becomes more important. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Pat Ferrel wrote: +1 Seems like we ought to keep up to the bleeding edge until the next Mahout release, that’s when the pain of upgrade gets spread much wider. In fact if Spark gets moved to Scala 2.11 before our release we probably should consider upgrading Scala too.
Re: Upgrade to spark 1.0.x
+1 Until we release a version that uses spark, we should stay with what helps us. Once a release goes out then tracking whichever version of spark that the big distros put out becomes more important. On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Pat Ferrel wrote: > +1 > > Seems like we ought to keep up to the bleeding edge until the next Mahout > release, that’s when the pain of upgrade gets spread much wider. In fact if > Spark gets moved to Scala 2.11 before our release we probably should > consider upgrading Scala too.
Re: Upgrade to spark 1.0.x
+1 Seems like we ought to keep up to the bleeding edge until the next Mahout release, that’s when the pain of upgrade gets spread much wider. In fact if Spark gets moved to Scala 2.11 before our release we probably should consider upgrading Scala too.
Re: Upgrade to spark 1.0.x
+1 On 8/8/14, 3:58 PM, Suneel Marthi wrote: +1 On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: +1 to merge On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Gokhan Capan wrote: +1 to merging spark-1.0.x to master Sent from my iPhone On Aug 8, 2014, at 22:06, Dmitriy Lyubimov wrote: Current master is still at Spark 0.9.x . MAHOUT-1603 (PR #40) is making a number of valuable tweaks to enable Spark 1.0.x and (Spark SQL code, by extension. I did a quick test, SQL seems to work for my simple tests in Mahout environment). This squashed PR is pushed to apache/mahout branch spark-1.0.x rather than master. Whenever (if) folks are ready, i can merge it to the master. Alternative approach would be to maintain both 1.0.x and 0.9.x branches for some time. I don't see it as valuable as the costs would likely overrun any benefit here, but if anyone still clings to spark 0.9.x dependency, please let me know in this thread. thanks. -d
Re: Upgrade to spark 1.0.x
+1 On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > +1 to merge > > > > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Gokhan Capan wrote: > > > +1 to merging spark-1.0.x to master > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Aug 8, 2014, at 22:06, Dmitriy Lyubimov wrote: > > > > > > Current master is still at Spark 0.9.x . MAHOUT-1603 (PR #40) is > making a > > > number of valuable tweaks to enable Spark 1.0.x and (Spark SQL code, by > > > extension. I did a quick test, SQL seems to work for my simple tests in > > > Mahout environment). > > > > > > This squashed PR is pushed to apache/mahout branch spark-1.0.x rather > > than > > > master. Whenever (if) folks are ready, i can merge it to the master. > > > > > > Alternative approach would be to maintain both 1.0.x and 0.9.x branches > > for > > > some time. I don't see it as valuable as the costs would likely overrun > > any > > > benefit here, but if anyone still clings to spark 0.9.x dependency, > > please > > > let me know in this thread. > > > > > > thanks. > > > -d > > >
Re: Upgrade to spark 1.0.x
+1 to merge On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Gokhan Capan wrote: > +1 to merging spark-1.0.x to master > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Aug 8, 2014, at 22:06, Dmitriy Lyubimov wrote: > > > > Current master is still at Spark 0.9.x . MAHOUT-1603 (PR #40) is making a > > number of valuable tweaks to enable Spark 1.0.x and (Spark SQL code, by > > extension. I did a quick test, SQL seems to work for my simple tests in > > Mahout environment). > > > > This squashed PR is pushed to apache/mahout branch spark-1.0.x rather > than > > master. Whenever (if) folks are ready, i can merge it to the master. > > > > Alternative approach would be to maintain both 1.0.x and 0.9.x branches > for > > some time. I don't see it as valuable as the costs would likely overrun > any > > benefit here, but if anyone still clings to spark 0.9.x dependency, > please > > let me know in this thread. > > > > thanks. > > -d >
Re: Upgrade to spark 1.0.x
+1 to merging spark-1.0.x to master Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 8, 2014, at 22:06, Dmitriy Lyubimov wrote: > > Current master is still at Spark 0.9.x . MAHOUT-1603 (PR #40) is making a > number of valuable tweaks to enable Spark 1.0.x and (Spark SQL code, by > extension. I did a quick test, SQL seems to work for my simple tests in > Mahout environment). > > This squashed PR is pushed to apache/mahout branch spark-1.0.x rather than > master. Whenever (if) folks are ready, i can merge it to the master. > > Alternative approach would be to maintain both 1.0.x and 0.9.x branches for > some time. I don't see it as valuable as the costs would likely overrun any > benefit here, but if anyone still clings to spark 0.9.x dependency, please > let me know in this thread. > > thanks. > -d
