I agree that SPARK-23413 should be considered a blocker. It isn't unreasonable to run a history server that is used for several versions of Spark.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > SPARK-23381 is probably not a blocker IMHO; it's a nice-to-have to make > some returned values match an external implementation, for code that hasn't > been published yet. > > However I think it's OK to add to the 2.3.0 release if there's going to be > another RC. > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:49 PM Holden Karau <holden.ka...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> So it's currently tagged as minor and under consideration for 2.4.0. Do >> you think this priority is incorrect? This doesn't seem like a regression >> or a correctness issue so normally we wouldn't hold the release. Of course >> your free to vote how you choose, just providing some additional context >> around how tend to do released. >> >> >> On Feb 14, 2018 11:03 PM, "mrkm4ntr" <mrkm4...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'm -1 because of this issue. >> I want to fix the hashing implementation in FeatureHasher before >> FeatureHasher released in 2.3.0. >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-23381 >> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/20568 >> >> I will fix it soon. >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from: http://apache-spark-developers-list.1001551.n3.nabble.com/ >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >> >> >> -- Ryan Blue Software Engineer Netflix
