On 14 December 2013 03:13, Patrick Wendell pwend...@gmail.com wrote:
Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Spark
(incubating) version 0.8.1.
The tag to be voted on is v0.8.1-incubating (commit b87d31d):
Hello community,
Please find below a proposal draft wish to submit to the ASF. The proposal
is only a draft and persons interesting to this project are welcome to
join.
I am new here and also need help for the proposal and the further
processing.
A brief introduction of IDTP, UTID, and Busilet
On 13/12/13 21:59, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
Please vote:
[ ] +1 Yes, apply the patch enabling the experiment.
[ ] -1 No, do not apply the patch enabling the experiment.
+1
--
Sergio Fernández
Senior Researcher
Knowledge and Media Technologies
Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
+1
On Dec 13, 2013, at 11:31 PM, Henry Saputra henry.sapu...@gmail.com wrote:
So it begins =)
+1
Thanks for leading the effort, Marvin
- Henry
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Marvin Humphrey
mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
Greetings,
As the next step in our ongoing efforts to
+1
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Joseph Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.comwrote:
+1
On Dec 13, 2013, at 11:31 PM, Henry Saputra henry.sapu...@gmail.com
wrote:
So it begins =)
+1
Thanks for leading the effort, Marvin
- Henry
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Marvin
Hi Sebb, thanks for the review.
When you said However they both contain binaries, which is not good.
were you talking about the spark-0.8.1-incubating-bin-* files ?
- Henry
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Patrick Wendell pwend...@gmail.com wrote:
Please vote on releasing the following
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Henry Saputra henry.sapu...@gmail.com wrote:
When you said However they both contain binaries, which is not good.
were you talking about the spark-0.8.1-incubating-bin-* files ?
There seem to be compiled files in the source archive.
marvin@knut:~/spark $ tar
+1
On 14/12/13 14:42, Dave wrote:
+1
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Joseph Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.comwrote:
+1
On Dec 13, 2013, at 11:31 PM, Henry Saputra henry.sapu...@gmail.com
wrote:
So it begins =)
+1
Thanks for leading the effort, Marvin
- Henry
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at
However they both contain binaries, which is not good.
Third party jars should *not* be included in SCM nor in source releases.
These are not binary artifacts containing our project's code. They are
our build tool and immediate dependencies that are not published in
maven. I've looked around to
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Patrick Wendell pwend...@gmail.com wrote:
However they both contain binaries, which is not good.
Third party jars should *not* be included in SCM nor in source releases.
These are not binary artifacts containing our project's code. They are
our build tool and
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
We should probably be clear about *who* can relax the rules, because
again this could become a fighting ground amongst 180 of us.
Perhaps we can avert potential disputes by blocking graduation rather than
releases.
Every
Hey Marvin,
Is this policy actually written up anywhere (along with best practices
on how to deal with this issue if you indeed have third party
dependencies)? I'm just asking because I don't see an obvious fix
for this based on the way Spark is built.
Second - this issue was not brought to our
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Patrick Wendell pwend...@gmail.com wrote:
We are planning to do our next major release (Spark 0.9.0) while still
under incubation in the next few weeks. Could I propose that we create
a parallel discussion about how we might re-tool or build process with
the
Thanks Marvin and Joe,
Do you know which other projects/people we might reach out to for
institutional knowledge of how this is done?
Our specific issue is that while 99% of our dependencies are in maven,
there are a small # of dependencies that don't publish anywhere via
maven. One solution
14 matches
Mail list logo
