Re: Welcoming Tejas Patil as a Spark committer

Congratulations! Xiao 2017-10-02 10:47 GMT-07:00 Tejas Patil : > Thanks everyone !!! It's a great privilege to be part of the Spark > community. > > ~tejasp > > On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Oh, yeah. Seen

[mesos] dispatcher and mesos constraints applied to driver - SPARK-19606

Hi - I was hoping to revive the discussion regarding the application of mesos constraints to driver tasks. I added some comments to: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-19606 Basically, I am proposing the introduction of an additional optional

Re: Should Flume integration be behind a profile?

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Nick Pentreath wrote: > I'd agree with #1 or #2. Deprecation now seems fine. > > Perhaps this should be raised on the user list also? > > And perhaps it makes sense to look at moving the Flume support into Apache > Bahir if there is

Re: Welcoming Tejas Patil as a Spark committer

Thanks everyone !!! It's a great privilege to be part of the Spark community. ~tejasp On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: > Hi, > > Oh, yeah. Seen Tejas here and there in the commits. Well deserved. > > Jacek > > On 29 Sep 2017 9:58 pm, "Matei Zaharia"

Re: [discuss] Data Source V2 write path

As far as changes to the public API go, I’d prefer deprecating the API that mixes data and metadata operations. But I don’t think that requires that we go with your proposal #1, where the current write API can’t use data source v2 writers. I think we can separate the metadata operations for Hadoop

[VOTE][SPIP] SPARK-22026 data source v2 write path

Hi all, After we merge the infrastructure of data source v2 read path, and have some discussion for the write path, now I'm sending this email to call a vote for Data Source v2 write path. The full document of the Data Source API V2 is:

Re: Should Flume integration be behind a profile?

CCing user@ Yeah good point about perhaps moving the examples into the module itself. Actually removing it would be a long way off, no matter what. On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 8:35 AM Nick Pentreath wrote: > I'd agree with #1 or #2. Deprecation now seems fine. > > Perhaps

Re: Should Flume integration be behind a profile?

I'd agree with #1 or #2. Deprecation now seems fine. Perhaps this should be raised on the user list also? And perhaps it makes sense to look at moving the Flume support into Apache Bahir if there is interest (I've cc'ed Bahir dev list here)? That way the current state of the connector could keep