Github user vanzin commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/1218#discussion_r17003118
--- Diff: project/MimaExcludes.scala ---
@@ -106,6 +106,13 @@ object MimaExcludes {
MimaBuild.excludeSparkClass("storage.Values") ++
MimaBuild.excludeSparkClass("storage.Entry") ++
MimaBuild.excludeSparkClass("storage.MemoryStore$Entry") ++
+ // Class was missing "@DeveloperApi" annotation in 1.0.
+
MimaBuild.excludeSparkClass("scheduler.SparkListenerApplicationStart") ++
+ // Class is "private[spark]" but for some reason not being
ignored?
+ Seq(
+ ProblemFilters.exclude[AbstractClassProblem](
+
"org.apache.spark.scheduler.cluster.CoarseGrainedSchedulerBackend")
+ ) ++
--- End diff --
They were failing with both (builds are probably gone by now). The
complaint was that the class was concrete but now is abstract. Since I
implemented your suggestion above I can probably let the class be concrete
again and avoid having to figure out why mima was complaining.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
