Regarding new GraphX algorithms, I am in agreement with the idea of publishing algorithms which are implemented using the existing API as outside packages.
Regarding SPARK-10335, we have a PR for SPARK-5484 which should address the problem described in that ticket. I've reviewed that PR, but because it touches the ML codebase I'd like to get an ML committer to review that PR. It's a relatively simple change and fixes an significant barrier to scaling in GraphX. https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/15125 Cheers, Michael > On Jan 19, 2017, at 8:09 AM, Takeshi Yamamuro <linguin....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for your comment, Dongjin! > I have a pretty basic and also important question; why do you implement these > features as a third-party library (and then upload them to the spark > packages https://spark-packages.org/ <https://spark-packages.org/>)? ISTM > graphx has already necessary and sufficient APIs for these third-party ones. > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Dongjin Lee <dong...@apache.org > <mailto:dong...@apache.org>> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am currently working on SPARK-15880[^1] and also have some interest on > SPARK-7244[^2] and SPARK-7257[^3]. In fact, SPARK-7244 and SPARK-7257 have > some importance on graph analysis field. > Could you make them an exception? Since I am working on graph analysis, I > hope to take them. > > If needed, I can take SPARK-10335 and SPARK-8497 after them. > > Thanks, > Dongjin > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com > <mailto:so...@cloudera.com>> wrote: > WontFix or Later is fine. There's not really any practical distinction. I > figure that if something times out and is closed, it's very unlikely to be > looked at again. Therefore marking it as something to do 'later' seemed less > accurate. > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:30 PM Takeshi Yamamuro <linguin....@gmail.com > <mailto:linguin....@gmail.com>> wrote: > Thank for your comment! > I'm just thinking I'll set "Won't Fix" though, "Later" is also okay. > But, I re-checked "Contributing to JIRA Maintenance" in the contribution > guide (http://spark.apache.org/contributing.html > <http://spark.apache.org/contributing.html>) and > I couldn't find any setting policy about "Later". > So, IMO it's okay to set "Won't Fix" for now and those who'd like to make prs > feel free to (re?-)open tickets. > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Dongjoon Hyun <dongj...@apache.org > <mailto:dongj...@apache.org>> wrote: > Hi, Takeshi. > > > So, IMO it seems okay to close tickets about "Improvement" and "New > > Feature" for now. > > I'm just wondering about what kind of field value you want to fill in the > `Resolution` field for those issues. > > Maybe, 'Later'? Or, 'Won't Fix'? > > Bests, > Dongjoon. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org> > > > > > -- > --- > Takeshi Yamamuro > > > > -- > Dongjin Lee > > Software developer in Line+. > So interested in massive-scale machine learning. > > facebook: www.facebook.com/dongjin.lee.kr > <http://www.facebook.com/dongjin.lee.kr> > linkedin: kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr > <http://kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr> > github: <http://goog_969573159/>github.com/dongjinleekr > <http://github.com/dongjinleekr> > twitter: www.twitter.com/dongjinleekr <http://www.twitter.com/dongjinleekr> > > > -- > --- > Takeshi Yamamuro
