> > The situation sounds fine for the next minor release...
I don't understand what you mean by this. According to my current understanding, the next release of Spark other than maintenance releases on 0.9.x is intended to be a major release, 1.0.0, and there are no plans for an intervening minor release, which would be 0.10.0. Thus "the next minor release" would be 1.1.0, and I fail to see why we would wait for that instead of putting the dependency change (assuming that it is something that we do, indeed, want) in 1.0.0. On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:51 PM, aarondav <g...@git.apache.org> wrote: > Github user aarondav commented on the pull request: > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-spark/pull/582#issuecomment-34836430 > > Thanks for looking into it! The situation sounds fine for the next > minor release, and I don't think this patch needs to be included in the > next maintenance release anyway (following your very own [suggestion]( > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spark-dev/201402.mbox/browser) > on the dev list). > > While this patch looks good to me, I am not sure I fully understand > the need for it. I posted my question on the [dev list thread]( > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spark-dev/201402.mbox/%3C945190638.685798.1391974088596.JavaMail.zimbra%40redhat.com%3E). > Besides the dependency change, you also mention performance improvements. > [This benchmark]( > http://engineering.ooyala.com/blog/comparing-scala-json-libraries) does > show Jackson outperforming lift on a particular workload, but do you have > another source showing how the relative performance changes with input size? > >
