Re: Build passed/failed messages for pull requests

2017-04-28 Thread Matthias Boehm
as I commented on one of these github comments, I'm strongly against these kind of unnecessary messages because they distract from the actual discussions. I already had to change my notification settings accordingly - essentially I'm not watching SystemML's PR activity any more. Regards,

Build passed/failed messages for pull requests

2017-04-28 Thread Deron Eriksson
Hi, When a pull request is created or another commit is pushed to that pull request, a build including running our test suite is performed (Jenkins at https://sparktc.ibmcloud.com/jenkins/job/SystemML-PullRequestBuilder/). This is the same model that other projects such as Apache Spark use

Re: Build passed/failed messages for pull requests

2017-04-28 Thread Nakul Jindal
I like option (2) as well. It is difficult for a new contributor to know the URL for the Jenkins server. In so far as this may be considered spam, I would suggest that this can be controlled using the notification settings on github and filters on your email server/client. On Fri, Apr 28, 2017

Re: Build passed/failed messages for pull requests

2017-04-28 Thread Arvind Surve
Agree, these messages are distractions.  Arvind Surve | Spark Technology Center  | http://www.spark.tc/ From: Matthias Boehm To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 11:05 AM Subject: Re: Build passed/failed messages for pull requests

Re: [VOTE] Apache SystemML 0.14.0-incubating (RC4)

2017-04-28 Thread Arvind Surve
+1 Completed following verifications   - License and Notice validations   - Binary runtime validations    - Source code compilation and runtime validations   - Python scripts validations using Python 2 Arvind Surve | Spark Technology Center  | http://www.spark.tc/ From: Glenn Weidner

Re: Build passed/failed messages for pull requests

2017-04-28 Thread Glenn Weidner
My preference is option 3. Thanks, Glenn From: Arvind Surve To: "dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org" Date: 04/28/2017 11:09 AM Subject:Re: Build passed/failed messages for pull requests Agree, these

Re: Build passed/failed messages for pull requests

2017-04-28 Thread dusenberrymw
I would prefer option 2. -- Mike Dusenberry GitHub: github.com/dusenberrymw LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/mikedusenberry Sent from my iPhone. > On Apr 28, 2017, at 12:40 PM, Glenn Weidner wrote: > > My preference is option 3. > > Thanks, > Glenn > > > Arvind Surve

Re: Podling Report Reminder - May 2017

2017-04-28 Thread Deron Eriksson
Hi, Would anyone else care to volunteer to create the SystemML podling report? If there are no volunteers, I will volunteer, but since SystemML is a community effort, it is good for others to be involved in the process. Note that podling reports are an important part of the incubation process, as

Re: [VOTE] Apache SystemML 0.14.0-incubating (RC4)

2017-04-28 Thread dusenberrymw
+1 Grabbed the tar binary and the tar source and tested various local scripts in Scala & Python 2 + 3, and those ran fine. However, I did run the MNIST LeNet demo on both our 0.13 release and this 0.14 candidate, and I noticed a regression in 0.14. For the same script run back to back, the