Sounds good, now that we are all clear on what we mean. Didn't mean to be a dick, just was a little confused on what you meant.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? > >> > >> >
