Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4614
---
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 mengxr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4614#issuecomment-74459251
LGTM. Merged into master and branch-1.3. Thanks!
---
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 pr
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4614#issuecomment-74430603
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/27
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4614#issuecomment-74430600
[Test build #27528 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/27528/consoleFull)
for PR 4614 at commit
[`288cb05`](https://gith
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4614#issuecomment-74427056
[Test build #27528 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/27528/consoleFull)
for PR 4614 at commit
[`288cb05`](https://githu
Github user mengxr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4614#issuecomment-74426536
If that's the direction we are going to take, let's mention the route `run
-> runSVDPlusPlus (1.3) -> run (1.4)` in the deprecation message and the doc,
and then mark `run
Github user srowen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4614#issuecomment-74425994
@mengxr All of that is possible and makes some sense. I suppose the issue
is then that anyone who calls the undeprecated `runSVDPlusPlus` method in
1.3.x. then finds it mi
Github user mengxr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4614#issuecomment-74425071
@srowen Since we are definitely going to remove `run` in 1.4, we should
state that explicitly in the message. After we remove `run`, are we going to
deprecate `runSVDPlusP
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4614#issuecomment-74422587
[Test build #27521 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/27521/consoleFull)
for PR 4614 at commit
[`497458e`](https://gith
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4614#issuecomment-74422593
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/27
Github user srowen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4614#issuecomment-74421073
Heh, yeah I get it although it still feels worse than just accepting a
different name. Anyone else have an opinion either way?
---
If your project is set up for it, you c
Github user maropu commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4614#issuecomment-74420544
Understood.
I was thinking that not dummy arguments but the duplicated 'Conf' class in
SVDPlusPlus
are used so as to solve the issue;
/** Obsolete:
Github user srowen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4614#issuecomment-74420020
@maropu The problem is that we are deprecating a `run()` method with the
same arguments, but different return type. The new method has to have a
different name. I agree al
Github user maropu commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4614#issuecomment-74419961
Look good though, it would be better to use SVDPlusPlus.run() as the name
of an entry point for usability
because other libraries such TriangleCount and PageRan do so.
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4614#issuecomment-74419943
[Test build #27521 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/27521/consoleFull)
for PR 4614 at commit
[`497458e`](https://githu
Github user srowen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4614#issuecomment-74419864
Retest this please
---
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 SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4614#issuecomment-74417718
[Test build #27520 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/27520/consoleFull)
for PR 4614 at commit
[`497458e`](https://gith
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4614#issuecomment-74417720
Test FAILed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/27
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4614#issuecomment-74417688
[Test build #27520 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/27520/consoleFull)
for PR 4614 at commit
[`497458e`](https://githu
GitHub user srowen opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4614
SPARK-5815 [MLLIB] Deprecate SVDPlusPlus APIs that expose DoubleMatrix from
JBLAS
Deprecate SVDPlusPlus.run and introduce SVDPlusPlus.runSVDPlusPlus with
return type that doesn't include DoubleMatri
20 matches
Mail list logo
