Github user JoshRosen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-67386266
I've merged this into `branch-1.2`, so this fix will be included in Spark
1.2.1.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570
---
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 wishes so, or if the feature is enab
Github user JoshRosen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-66415593
Thanks for updating the description. This looks good to me, so I'm going
to merge this into `master`, `branch-1.0`, and `branch-1.1` (and I'll tag it
for a post-releas
Github user nkronenfeld commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-66399588
sorry, must have accidentally hit cancel instead of comment the first time.
Should be set now.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and
Github user nkronenfeld commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-66398560
I thought I'd done so, it looks like it lost my changes
I'll fix that asap
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply
Github user JoshRosen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-66398459
LGTM. Just in case you missed my earlier comment, are you still planning
to update the PR description to reflect the actual changes vs. the ones you had
planned?
---
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-66391021
[Test build #24274 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/24274/consoleFull)
for PR 3570 at commit
[`a581f3f`](https://gith
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-66391029
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/24
Github user JoshRosen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-66383538
@kayousterhout I'm glad to see that changing it to `private[spark]` fixed
things without requiring a MiMa exclude for the `private -> private[spark]`
change. This is g
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-66383350
[Test build #24274 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/24274/consoleFull)
for PR 3570 at commit
[`a581f3f`](https://githu
Github user nkronenfeld commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-66380241
comment fixed. I'm trying to test the MiMa related changes to see if they
work, and having problems running mima on my machine. I'll probably just push
them in the
Github user JoshRosen commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#discussion_r21573219
--- Diff: core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/Accumulators.scala ---
@@ -281,7 +282,9 @@ object AccumulatorParam {
private object Accumulators {
Github user nkronenfeld commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#discussion_r21572834
--- Diff: core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/Accumulators.scala ---
@@ -281,7 +282,9 @@ object AccumulatorParam {
private object Accumulators {
Github user kayousterhout commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-66360844
To fix the MiMA problem, can you instead make Accumulators a private[spark]
object? No one I've asked seems to understand what "private" even means in this
context
Github user andrewor14 commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-66357628
LGTM, nice catch.
---
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 fe
Github user JoshRosen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-66346390
This looks good to me. If you don't mind, could you update the pull
request description to more accurately describe the change that we're actually
committing? This is
Github user JoshRosen commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#discussion_r21557013
--- Diff: core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/Accumulators.scala ---
@@ -281,7 +282,9 @@ object AccumulatorParam {
private object Accumulators {
Github user nkronenfeld commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-66238332
Any word on this?
---
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 f
Github user nkronenfeld commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-65883848
oh, a note for when you're reviewing - I didn't move the clear call, I just
added a second one; I saw no particular harm in leaving the old one there too,
just in cas
Github user nkronenfeld commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-65883762
great... I think outside the mima issue, it should be all set, unless I can
figure out a way to unit test it. So far, my best methods of testing it
involve instrumen
Github user JoshRosen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-65883736
No, I'd leave it. I just thought I'd mention it so that we eventually
investigate. I'll finish reviewing this PR later this weekend.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at
Github user nkronenfeld commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-65883687
Should I back out the correction to the mima failure?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well.
Github user JoshRosen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-65873447
The MiMa failure is surprising, since that class was marked as `private`
and therefore shouldn't have been subject to compatibility checks.
@ScrapCodes, do you know if
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-65870758
[Test build #24195 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/24195/consoleFull)
for PR 3570 at commit
[`b6c2180`](https://gith
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-65870763
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/24
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3570#issuecomment-65861501
[Test build #24195 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/24195/consoleFull)
for PR 3570 at commit
[`b6c2180`](https://githu
26 matches
Mail list logo
