Github user dongjoon-hyun commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Thank you, @shivaram and @felixcheung .
I'm really happy since this became a part of Spark 2.0 !!
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appe
Github user shivaram commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
LGTM. Thanks for this PR @dongjoon-hyun -- This is very useful to have
going forward.
Merging this to master, branch-2.0
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/60866/
Test PASSed.
---
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Merged build finished. Test PASSed.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
e
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
**[Test build #60866 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/60866/consoleFull)**
for PR 13734 at commit
[`dbb5fc8`](https://github.com/apache/spark/commit/
Github user dongjoon-hyun commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Thank you, @shivaram !
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wi
Github user shivaram commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Ok. I think this is a reasonable proposal. I will take one more final pass
on this PR today
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub a
Github user dongjoon-hyun commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Thank you for narrowing the scope. Indeed, this seems to be an experimental
attempt.
I rebased to resolved the conflict. As @felixcheung mentioned, the use of
function signature is the rem
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
**[Test build #60866 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/60866/consoleFull)**
for PR 13734 at commit
[`dbb5fc8`](https://github.com/apache/spark/commit/d
Github user felixcheung commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
so if we are ok with `@note approxCountDistinct(Column) since 1.4.0` as the
form for now I think we are ok with this PR.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and h
Github user shivaram commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
- Yeah we can make documentation changes after the RC as the doc updates
are pushed separately to the Spark website. However I prefer to get R doc
changes in before the RC as these are the ones tha
Github user felixcheung commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
I'm not sure what is the process but historically doc only changes are ok
to go a bit later in the RC/release cut off.
I am ok with `@note` style though I'm concerned that it would be ha
Github user dongjoon-hyun commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
For other important issue about `see also`, all the previous doc look like
that.
http://spark.apache.org/docs/1.6.0/api/R/approxCountDistinct.html
http://spark.apache.org/docs/1.5.
Github user dongjoon-hyun commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
By the way, before discussing further, should I retarget this PR for Spark
2.1.0 ?
I think this PR misses the deadline a little bit.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to
Github user dongjoon-hyun commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
It seems you're concerning multiple issue. I'll focus on the same versions
issue first.
The principle of this PR is simply adding `since` tag for all exposed
functions.
IMHO,
Github user felixcheung commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Do you think we should annotate with name even when they are on the same
rd/page?
eg. there's only approxCountDistinct on this
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/60784/
Test PASSed.
---
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Merged build finished. Test PASSed.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
e
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
**[Test build #60784 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/60784/consoleFull)**
for PR 13734 at commit
[`f2ffcdd`](https://github.com/apache/spark/commit/
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
**[Test build #60784 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/60784/consoleFull)**
for PR 13734 at commit
[`f2ffcdd`](https://github.com/apache/spark/commit/f
Github user dongjoon-hyun commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Thank you, @felixcheung . I removed the note on `dataFrame`.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project doe
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/60765/
Test PASSed.
---
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
**[Test build #60765 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/60765/consoleFull)**
for PR 13734 at commit
[`0092967`](https://github.com/apache/spark/commit/
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Merged build finished. Test PASSed.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
e
Github user dongjoon-hyun commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Hi, @shivaram and @felixcheung .
Now the document is updated with master and shows merged notes correctly. I
manually checked all the merged notes and used function signatures for
overload
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
**[Test build #60765 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/60765/consoleFull)**
for PR 13734 at commit
[`0092967`](https://github.com/apache/spark/commit/0
Github user dongjoon-hyun commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Thank you for opinions! I'll revise and update the html doc.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project doe
Github user felixcheung commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
hopefully we don't have a lot of these...
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this featu
Github user shivaram commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Yeah since the notes appear in a separate section I think its better to be
more explicit -- so `read.df since 1.6.0` will be good for these cases
---
If your project is set up for it, you can repl
Github user felixcheung commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Hmm.. there isn't really a good way to do that due to how roxgen2 collapses
the 2 blocks. In some cases other parts like parameter list could get very
confusing too.
I think we could re
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Merged build finished. Test PASSed.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
e
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/60723/
Test PASSed.
---
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
**[Test build #60723 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/60723/consoleFull)**
for PR 13734 at commit
[`df3e039`](https://github.com/apache/spark/commit/
Github user dongjoon-hyun commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Hi, All.
For review, I uploaded the generated R doc here.
https://home.apache.org/~dongjoon/spark-2.0.0-docs/api/R/
The remaining issue is the **multiple** notes like the f
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
**[Test build #60723 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/60723/consoleFull)**
for PR 13734 at commit
[`df3e039`](https://github.com/apache/spark/commit/d
Github user dongjoon-hyun commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Thank you for review, @felixcheung !
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
Github user felixcheung commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
I reviewed all of it and they looked roughly correct for me, drawing from
memory :) ð
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub
Github user felixcheung commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Cool! Thank you for pulling this together. Yea, I'm not sure how to handle
SparkDataFrame either and I think what you have is reasonable. (SparkDataFrame
should be fairly transparent to users an
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/60702/
Test PASSed.
---
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Merged build finished. Test PASSed.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
e
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
**[Test build #60702 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/60702/consoleFull)**
for PR 13734 at commit
[`8f029ab`](https://github.com/apache/spark/commit/
Github user dongjoon-hyun commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
Hi, @shivaram , @felixcheung , @sun-rui .
It's the first draft. There is a little ambiguity like the following.
- `SparkDataFrame` is marked as `@note since 2.0.0` because `Dat
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/13734
**[Test build #60702 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/60702/consoleFull)**
for PR 13734 at commit
[`8f029ab`](https://github.com/apache/spark/commit/8
44 matches
Mail list logo
