Thanks Jungtaek!
2020년 2월 14일 (금) 오후 3:57, Jungtaek Lim 님이 작성:
> OK I agree this is going forward as we decided the final goal and it seems
> someone starts to work on. In the meanwhile we agree about documenting the
> direct relationship, and which style to use is "open".
>
> Thanks again to
OK I agree this is going forward as we decided the final goal and it seems
someone starts to work on. In the meanwhile we agree about documenting the
direct relationship, and which style to use is "open".
Thanks again to initiate the discussion thread - this thread led the
following thread for
It's okay to just follow one prevailing style. The main point I would like
to say is the fact that we should *document* the direct relationship of
configurations.
For this case specifically, I don't think there is so much point here to
decide one hard requirement to follow for the mid-term. We
Even spark.dynamicAllocation.* doesn't follow 2-2, right? It follows the
mix of 1 and 2-1, though 1 is even broken there.
It doesn't matter If we just discuss about one-time decision - it may be OK
to not to be strict on consistency, though it's not ideal. The thing is
that these kind of
I think it’s just fine as long as we’re consistent with the instances
having the description, for instance:
When true and ‘spark.xx.xx’ is enabled, …
I think this is 2-2 in most cases so far. I think we can reference other
configuration keys in another configuration documentation by using
I tend to agree that there should be a time to make thing be consistent
(and I'm very happy to see the new thread on discussion) and we may want to
take some practice in the interim.
But for me it is not clear what is the practice in the interim. I pointed
out the problems of existing style and
Adding those information is already a more prevailing style at this moment,
and this is usual to follow prevailing side if there isn't a specific
reason.
If there is confusion about this, I will explicitly add it into the guide (
https://spark.apache.org/contributing.html). Let me know if this
Yes, that's probably our final goal to revisit the configurations to make
it structured and deduplicated documentation cleanly. +1.
One point I would like to add is though to add such information to the
documentation until we actually manage our final goal
since probably it's going to take a
Thank you for raising the issue, Hyukjin.
According to the current status of discussion, it seems that we are able to
agree on updating the non-structured configurations and keeping the
structured configuration AS-IS.
I'm +1 for the revisiting the configurations if that is our direction. If
All are valid and valuable observations to put into practice:
* structured and meaningful config names
* explainable text or succinct description
* easily accessible or searchable
While these are aspirational but gradually doable if we make it part of the dev
and review cycle. Often
Yeah, that's one of my point why I dont want to document this in the guide
yet.
I would like to make sure dev people are on the same page that documenting
is a better practice. I dont intend to force as a hard requirement;
however, if that's pointed out, it should better to address.
On Wed, 12
In general I think it's better to have more detailed documents, but we
don't have to force everyone to do it if the config name is structured. I
would +1 to document the relationship of we can't tell it from the config
names, e.g. spark.shuffle.service.enabled
and spark.dynamicAllocation.enabled.
Also, I would like to hear other people' thoughts on here. Could I ask what
you guys think about this in general?
2020년 2월 12일 (수) 오후 12:02, Hyukjin Kwon 님이 작성:
> To do that, we should explicitly document such structured configuration
> and implicit effect, which is currently missing.
> I would
To do that, we should explicitly document such structured configuration and
implicit effect, which is currently missing.
I would be more than happy if we document such implied relationship, *and*
if we are very sure all configurations are structured correctly coherently.
Until that point, I think
I'm looking into the case of `spark.dynamicAllocation` and this seems to be
the thing to support my voice.
https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/docs/configuration.md#dynamic-allocation
I don't disagree with adding "This requires spark.shuffle.service.enabled
to be set." in the description
Sure, adding "[DISCUSS]" is a good practice to label it. I had to do it
although it might be "redundant" :-) since anyone can give feedback to any
thread in Spark dev mailing list, and discuss.
This is actually more prevailing given my rough reading of configuration
files. I would like to see
I'm sorry if I miss something, but this is ideally better to be started as
[DISCUSS] as I haven't seen any reference to have consensus on this
practice.
For me it's just there're two different practices co-existing on the
codebase, meaning it's closer to the preference of individual (with
> I don't plan to document this officially yet
Just to prevent confusion, I meant I don't yet plan to document the fact
that we should write the relationships in configurations as a code/review
guideline in https://spark.apache.org/contributing.html
2020년 2월 12일 (수) 오전 9:57, Hyukjin Kwon 님이 작성:
Hi all,
I happened to review some PRs and I noticed that some configurations don't
have some information
necessary.
To be explicit, I would like to make sure we document the direct
relationship between other configurations
in the documentation. For example,
19 matches
Mail list logo
