Re: [R] discuss: removing lint-r checks for old branches
SGTM too 2018년 8월 12일 (일) 오전 7:41, shane knapp 님이 작성: > they do seem like real failures on branches 2.0 and 2.1. > > regarding infrastructure, centos and ubuntu have lintr pinned to > 1.0.1.9000, and installed via: > devtools::install_github('jimhester/lintr@5431140') > > builds on branches 2.2+ (and master) are passing R lint checks on both > OSes as well. this includes PRB builds too. we're really close! > > for once, i feel comfortable saying that i have the R ecosystem locked > down, reproducible and working. :) > > shane > > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Felix Cheung > wrote: > >> SGTM for old branches. >> >> I recall we need to upgrade to newer lintr since it is missing some tests. >> >> Also these seems like real test failures? Are these only happening in 2.1 >> and 2.2? >> >> >> -- >> *From:* shane knapp >> *Sent:* Friday, August 10, 2018 4:04 PM >> *To:* Sean Owen >> *Cc:* Shivaram Venkataraman; Reynold Xin; dev >> *Subject:* Re: [R] discuss: removing lint-r checks for old branches >> >> /agreemsg >> >> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Sean Owen wrote: >> >>> Seems OK to proceed with shutting off lintr, as it was masking those. >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 6:01 PM shane knapp wrote: >>> >>>> ugh... R unit tests failed on both of these builds. >>>> >>>> https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/94583/artifact/R/target/ >>>> >>>> https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/94584/artifact/R/target/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Shivaram Venkataraman < >>>> shiva...@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sounds good to me as well. Thanks Shane. >>>>> >>>>> Shivaram >>>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:40 PM Reynold Xin >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > SGTM >>>>> > >>>>> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:39 PM shane knapp >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-25089 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> basically since these branches are old, and there will be a greater >>>>> than zero amount of work to get lint-r to pass (on the new ubuntu >>>>> workers), >>>>> sean and i are proposing to remove the lint-r checks for the builds. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> this is super not important for the 2.4 cut/code freeze, but i >>>>> wanted to get this done before it gets pushed down my queue and before we >>>>> revisit the ubuntu port. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> thanks in advance, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> shane >>>>> >> -- >>>>> >> Shane Knapp >>>>> >> UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead >>>>> >> https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Shane Knapp >>>> UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead >>>> https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Shane Knapp >> UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead >> https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu >> > > > > -- > Shane Knapp > UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead > https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu >
Re: [R] discuss: removing lint-r checks for old branches
they do seem like real failures on branches 2.0 and 2.1. regarding infrastructure, centos and ubuntu have lintr pinned to 1.0.1.9000, and installed via: devtools::install_github('jimhester/lintr@5431140') builds on branches 2.2+ (and master) are passing R lint checks on both OSes as well. this includes PRB builds too. we're really close! for once, i feel comfortable saying that i have the R ecosystem locked down, reproducible and working. :) shane On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Felix Cheung wrote: > SGTM for old branches. > > I recall we need to upgrade to newer lintr since it is missing some tests. > > Also these seems like real test failures? Are these only happening in 2.1 > and 2.2? > > > -- > *From:* shane knapp > *Sent:* Friday, August 10, 2018 4:04 PM > *To:* Sean Owen > *Cc:* Shivaram Venkataraman; Reynold Xin; dev > *Subject:* Re: [R] discuss: removing lint-r checks for old branches > > /agreemsg > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Sean Owen wrote: > >> Seems OK to proceed with shutting off lintr, as it was masking those. >> >> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 6:01 PM shane knapp wrote: >> >>> ugh... R unit tests failed on both of these builds. >>> https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequest >>> Builder/94583/artifact/R/target/ >>> https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequest >>> Builder/94584/artifact/R/target/ >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Shivaram Venkataraman < >>> shiva...@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> Sounds good to me as well. Thanks Shane. >>>> >>>> Shivaram >>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:40 PM Reynold Xin >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > SGTM >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:39 PM shane knapp >>>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-25089 >>>> >> >>>> >> basically since these branches are old, and there will be a greater >>>> than zero amount of work to get lint-r to pass (on the new ubuntu workers), >>>> sean and i are proposing to remove the lint-r checks for the builds. >>>> >> >>>> >> this is super not important for the 2.4 cut/code freeze, but i >>>> wanted to get this done before it gets pushed down my queue and before we >>>> revisit the ubuntu port. >>>> >> >>>> >> thanks in advance, >>>> >> >>>> >> shane >>>> >> -- >>>> >> Shane Knapp >>>> >> UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead >>>> >> https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Shane Knapp >>> UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead >>> https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu >>> >> > > > -- > Shane Knapp > UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead > https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu > -- Shane Knapp UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu
Re: [R] discuss: removing lint-r checks for old branches
SGTM for old branches. I recall we need to upgrade to newer lintr since it is missing some tests. Also these seems like real test failures? Are these only happening in 2.1 and 2.2? From: shane knapp Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 4:04 PM To: Sean Owen Cc: Shivaram Venkataraman; Reynold Xin; dev Subject: Re: [R] discuss: removing lint-r checks for old branches /agreemsg On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Sean Owen mailto:sro...@gmail.com>> wrote: Seems OK to proceed with shutting off lintr, as it was masking those. On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 6:01 PM shane knapp mailto:skn...@berkeley.edu>> wrote: ugh... R unit tests failed on both of these builds. https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/94583/artifact/R/target/ https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/94584/artifact/R/target/ On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Shivaram Venkataraman mailto:shiva...@eecs.berkeley.edu>> wrote: Sounds good to me as well. Thanks Shane. Shivaram On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:40 PM Reynold Xin mailto:r...@databricks.com>> wrote: > > SGTM > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:39 PM shane knapp > mailto:skn...@berkeley.edu>> wrote: >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-25089 >> >> basically since these branches are old, and there will be a greater than >> zero amount of work to get lint-r to pass (on the new ubuntu workers), sean >> and i are proposing to remove the lint-r checks for the builds. >> >> this is super not important for the 2.4 cut/code freeze, but i wanted to get >> this done before it gets pushed down my queue and before we revisit the >> ubuntu port. >> >> thanks in advance, >> >> shane >> -- >> Shane Knapp >> UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead >> https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu -- Shane Knapp UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu -- Shane Knapp UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu
Re: [R] discuss: removing lint-r checks for old branches
ugh... R unit tests failed on both of these builds. https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/94583/artifact/R/target/ https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/94584/artifact/R/target/ On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Shivaram Venkataraman < shiva...@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > Sounds good to me as well. Thanks Shane. > > Shivaram > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:40 PM Reynold Xin wrote: > > > > SGTM > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:39 PM shane knapp wrote: > >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-25089 > >> > >> basically since these branches are old, and there will be a greater > than zero amount of work to get lint-r to pass (on the new ubuntu workers), > sean and i are proposing to remove the lint-r checks for the builds. > >> > >> this is super not important for the 2.4 cut/code freeze, but i wanted > to get this done before it gets pushed down my queue and before we revisit > the ubuntu port. > >> > >> thanks in advance, > >> > >> shane > >> -- > >> Shane Knapp > >> UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead > >> https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu > -- Shane Knapp UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu
Re: [R] discuss: removing lint-r checks for old branches
/agreemsg On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Sean Owen wrote: > Seems OK to proceed with shutting off lintr, as it was masking those. > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 6:01 PM shane knapp wrote: > >> ugh... R unit tests failed on both of these builds. >> https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/ >> SparkPullRequestBuilder/94583/artifact/R/target/ >> https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/ >> SparkPullRequestBuilder/94584/artifact/R/target/ >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Shivaram Venkataraman < >> shiva...@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote: >> >>> Sounds good to me as well. Thanks Shane. >>> >>> Shivaram >>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:40 PM Reynold Xin wrote: >>> > >>> > SGTM >>> > >>> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:39 PM shane knapp >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-25089 >>> >> >>> >> basically since these branches are old, and there will be a greater >>> than zero amount of work to get lint-r to pass (on the new ubuntu workers), >>> sean and i are proposing to remove the lint-r checks for the builds. >>> >> >>> >> this is super not important for the 2.4 cut/code freeze, but i wanted >>> to get this done before it gets pushed down my queue and before we revisit >>> the ubuntu port. >>> >> >>> >> thanks in advance, >>> >> >>> >> shane >>> >> -- >>> >> Shane Knapp >>> >> UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead >>> >> https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Shane Knapp >> UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead >> https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu >> > -- Shane Knapp UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu
Re: [R] discuss: removing lint-r checks for old branches
Seems OK to proceed with shutting off lintr, as it was masking those. On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 6:01 PM shane knapp wrote: > ugh... R unit tests failed on both of these builds. > > https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/94583/artifact/R/target/ > > https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/94584/artifact/R/target/ > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Shivaram Venkataraman < > shiva...@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > >> Sounds good to me as well. Thanks Shane. >> >> Shivaram >> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:40 PM Reynold Xin wrote: >> > >> > SGTM >> > >> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:39 PM shane knapp >> wrote: >> >> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-25089 >> >> >> >> basically since these branches are old, and there will be a greater >> than zero amount of work to get lint-r to pass (on the new ubuntu workers), >> sean and i are proposing to remove the lint-r checks for the builds. >> >> >> >> this is super not important for the 2.4 cut/code freeze, but i wanted >> to get this done before it gets pushed down my queue and before we revisit >> the ubuntu port. >> >> >> >> thanks in advance, >> >> >> >> shane >> >> -- >> >> Shane Knapp >> >> UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead >> >> https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu >> > > > > -- > Shane Knapp > UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead > https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu >
Re: [R] discuss: removing lint-r checks for old branches
Sounds good to me as well. Thanks Shane. Shivaram On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:40 PM Reynold Xin wrote: > > SGTM > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:39 PM shane knapp wrote: >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-25089 >> >> basically since these branches are old, and there will be a greater than >> zero amount of work to get lint-r to pass (on the new ubuntu workers), sean >> and i are proposing to remove the lint-r checks for the builds. >> >> this is super not important for the 2.4 cut/code freeze, but i wanted to get >> this done before it gets pushed down my queue and before we revisit the >> ubuntu port. >> >> thanks in advance, >> >> shane >> -- >> Shane Knapp >> UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead >> https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu - To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
Re: [R] discuss: removing lint-r checks for old branches
SGTM On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:39 PM shane knapp wrote: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-25089 > > basically since these branches are old, and there will be a greater than > zero amount of work to get lint-r to pass (on the new ubuntu workers), sean > and i are proposing to remove the lint-r checks for the builds. > > this is super not important for the 2.4 cut/code freeze, but i wanted to > get this done before it gets pushed down my queue and before we revisit the > ubuntu port. > > thanks in advance, > > shane > -- > Shane Knapp > UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead > https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu >
[R] discuss: removing lint-r checks for old branches
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-25089 basically since these branches are old, and there will be a greater than zero amount of work to get lint-r to pass (on the new ubuntu workers), sean and i are proposing to remove the lint-r checks for the builds. this is super not important for the 2.4 cut/code freeze, but i wanted to get this done before it gets pushed down my queue and before we revisit the ubuntu port. thanks in advance, shane -- Shane Knapp UC Berkeley EECS Research / RISELab Staff Technical Lead https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu