I think Aaron just meant 1.0.0 by "the next minor release".
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Mark Hamstra <m...@clearstorydata.com> wrote: >> >> 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? >> >>
