Thanks for reporting these issues! Please continue to test RC2 and report more issues.
Cheers, Xiao On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 7:40 AM Koert Kuipers <ko...@tresata.com> wrote: > i would like to point out that SPARK-27194 is a fault tolerance bug that > causes jobs to fail when any single task is retried. for us this is a major > headache because we have to keep restarting jobs (and explain that spark is > really fault tolerant generally, just not here). > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-27194 > this is not a regression and its not a blocker but if it could make it > into spark 3.0.0 that would be a win i think. pullreq is waiting for review. > thanks! > best, koert > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:06 PM Jungtaek Lim < > kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Looks like there're new blocker issues newly figured out. >> >> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-31786 >> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-31761 (not yet marked as >> blocker but according to JIRA comment it's a regression issue as well as >> correctness issue IMHO) >> >> Let's collect the list of blocker issues so that RC3 won't miss them. >> >> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:12 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> Okay, I took a look at the PR and I think it should be okay. The new >>> classes are unfortunately public, but are in catalyst which is considered >>> private. So this is the approach we discussed. >>> >>> I'm fine with the commit, other than the fact that it violated ASF norms >>> <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html> to commit without >>> waiting for a review. >>> >>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:00 AM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Why was https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/28523 merged with a >>>> -1? We discussed this months ago and concluded that it was a bad idea to >>>> introduce a new v2 API that cannot have reliable behavior across sources. >>>> >>>> The last time I checked that PR, the approach I discussed with >>>> Tathagata was to not add update mode to DSv2. Instead, Tathagata gave a >>>> couple of reasonable options to avoid it. Why were those not done? >>>> >>>> This is the second time this year that a PR with a -1 was merged. Does >>>> the Spark community not follow the convention to build consensus before >>>> merging changes? >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:13 AM Wenchen Fan <cloud0...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Seems the priority of SPARK-31706 is incorrectly marked, and it's a >>>>> blocker now. The fix was merged just a few hours ago. >>>>> >>>>> This should be a -1 for RC2. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 2:42 PM rickestcode < >>>>> matthias.harder...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ryan Blue >>> Software Engineer >>> Netflix >>> >> -- <https://databricks.com/sparkaisummit/north-america>
