Re: [DISCUSS] Naming convention for multiple spark/scala combos

IIRC these all fit sbt’s conventons? On Jul 7, 2017, at 2:05 PM, Trevor Grant wrote: So to tie all of this together- org.apache.mahout:mahout-spark_2.10:0.13.1_spark_1_6 org.apache.mahout:mahout-spark_2.10:0.13.1_spark_2_0 org.apache.mahout:mahout-spark_2.10:0.13.1_spark_2_1 org.apache.mahout

Re: [DISCUSS] Naming convention for multiple spark/scala combos

So to tie all of this together- org.apache.mahout:mahout-spark_2.10:0.13.1_spark_1_6 org.apache.mahout:mahout-spark_2.10:0.13.1_spark_2_0 org.apache.mahout:mahout-spark_2.10:0.13.1_spark_2_1 org.apache.mahout:mahout-spark_2.11:0.13.1_spark_1_6 org.apache.mahout:mahout-spark_2.11:0.13.1_spark_2_0

Re: [DISCUSS] Naming convention for multiple spark/scala combos

it would seem 2nd option is preferable if doable. Any option that has most desirable combinations prebuilt, is preferable i guess. Spark itself also releases tons of hadoop profile binary variations. so i don't have to build one myself. On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Trevor Grant wrote: > Hey a

[DISCUSS] Naming convention for multiple spark/scala combos

Hey all, Working on releasing 0.13.1 with multiple spark/scala combos. Afaik, there is no 'standard' for multiple spark versions (but I may be wrong, I don't claim expertise here). One approach is simply only release binaries for: Spark-1.6 + Scala 2.10 Spark-2.1 + Scala 2.11 OR We could do li