+1
XiDuo You ezt írta (időpont: 2024. júl. 30., K,
7:56):
> +1
>
> Zhou Jiang 于2024年7月30日周二 02:08写道：
> >
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > Zhou JIANG
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 11:06 L. C. Hsieh wrote:
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 7:33 AM Wenchen Fan
> wrote:
> >> >
+1
Zhou Jiang 于2024年7月30日周二 02:08写道：
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Zhou JIANG
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 11:06 L. C. Hsieh wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 7:33 AM Wenchen Fan wrote:
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 10:03 AM Dongjoon Hyun
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> +1
Let me clarify them. This is TL;DR:
- The PR (https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/47328) mentioned Databricks
in the PR description (it is edited now), which had to be avoided.
- I also updated committer guidelines in spark-website to prevent such
cases in the future.
- Otherwise, the change was
The original text (viewable in github) was
Why are the changes needed?
In *databricks runtime*certain storage configuration cases, RDD read /
write API has some issue for certain storage types that requires the
account key, but Dataframe read / write API works.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 2:11 PM
+1 (non-binding)
*Zhou JIANG*
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 11:06 L. C. Hsieh wrote:
> +1
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 7:33 AM Wenchen Fan wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 10:03 AM Dongjoon Hyun
> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Thank you, Kent.
> >>
> >> Dongjoon.
> >>
> >> On
+1
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 7:33 AM Wenchen Fan wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 10:03 AM Dongjoon Hyun
> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Thank you, Kent.
>>
>> Dongjoon.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 6:37 AM Kent Yao wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi dev,
>>>
>>> Please vote on releasing the following
Also from ASF community perspective -
I think all are agreed this was merged too fast. But, I'm missing where
this is somehow due to the needs of a single vendor. Where is this related
to file systems or keys?
did I miss it from another discussion or PR, or is this actually about a
different
I'm going to join in from an ASF community perspective.
Nobody should be making fundamental changes to an ASF code base with a PR
up and then merged two hours later because of the needs of a single vendor
of a downstream product. This doesn't even give people in different time
zones the chance to
Hi Spark Devs,
Please review my PR [ https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/47522 ] that
relates to ticket [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-49044 ].
Context: When we have mixed schema rows, the error message "{actual} is not
a valid external type for schema of {expected}" doesn't help
+1
On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 10:03 AM Dongjoon Hyun
wrote:
> +1
>
> Thank you, Kent.
>
> Dongjoon.
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 6:37 AM Kent Yao wrote:
>
>> Hi dev,
>>
>> Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Spark version
>> 3.5.2.
>>
>> The vote is open until Jul 29,
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 at 01:44, Arun Ravi wrote:
> Hi Rajesh,
>
> We use it production at scale. We run spark on kubernetes on aws cloud and
> here are the key things that we do
> 1) we run driver on on-demand node
> 2) we have configured decommission along with fallback option on to S3,
> try the
11 matches
Mail list logo
