[GitHub] [spark] holdenk commented on pull request #29032: [SPARK-32217] Plumb whether a worker would also be decommissioned along with executor

holdenk commented on pull request #29032: URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/29032#issuecomment-662169138 The pyspark packaging tests have generally been flaky so i think we don't have to worry about them given that the GH actions all passed. Let me do another pass through reveiw, a

[GitHub] [spark] holdenk commented on pull request #29032: [SPARK-32217] Plumb whether a worker would also be decommissioned along with executor

holdenk commented on pull request #29032: URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/29032#issuecomment-662171821 Thanks for the updates @agrawaldevesh. This looks good to me. I don't see any pending conversations that are ongoing, so if no one has any concerns that they aren't ok carrying

[GitHub] [spark] holdenk commented on pull request #29032: [SPARK-32217] Plumb whether a worker would also be decommissioned along with executor

holdenk commented on pull request #29032: URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/29032#issuecomment-662790280 Cool I’ll try merge this after dinner, thanks everyone for working on and reviewing this 👍 This is an automated

[GitHub] [spark] holdenk commented on pull request #29032: [SPARK-32217] Plumb whether a worker would also be decommissioned along with executor

holdenk commented on pull request #29032: URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/29032#issuecomment-662808939 Merged, thanks everyone. I don't know if we have a good principle around naming host v. worker with the deprecation.