Github user tdhopper commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/2895#issuecomment-67162827
@JoshRosen: Yup. Thanks.
---
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
Github user tdhopper closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/2895
---
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
Github user JoshRosen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/2895#issuecomment-67102429
If you don't mind, could you close this PR since it has been subsumed by
another commit? If we want to track the progress / backport status of a
different fix, then
Github user tdhopper commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/2895#issuecomment-60234425
Oh. Now that I look at master, @JoshRosen, I see that it's already been
fixed by @davis
Github user JoshRosen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/2895#issuecomment-60287652
Maybe we can backport SPARK-2871 to 1.1, since it looks like it also fixes
a bunch of preservesPartitioning bugs.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user JoshRosen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/2895#issuecomment-60287875
@davies Do you think we should backport #2093 to branch-1.1 in order to fix
this issue?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user davies commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/2895#issuecomment-60292102
@JoshRosen It will be better if we could easily backport them.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as
Github user tdhopper commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/2895#issuecomment-60304723
I'd love to see this happen.
---
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
Github user davis commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/2895#issuecomment-60306345
hm why am i notified here?
---
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
Github user JoshRosen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/2895#issuecomment-60306509
@davis I think someone mentioned you instead of @davies (an
off-by-one-character error).
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user JoshRosen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/2895#issuecomment-60306682
(Imagine what `@Override`'s notification inbox must look like...)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on
GitHub user tdhopper opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/2895
Clarify docstring for Pyspark's foreachPartition
Due to the underlying use of `mapPartitions` which requires a function that
maps partitions to partitions, `foreachPartition` requires the function
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/2895#issuecomment-60145810
Can one of the admins verify this patch?
---
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
Github user JoshRosen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/2895#issuecomment-60159250
Actually, we might want to just fix this and allow `foreachPartition` and
`foreach` to accept those types of UDFs, too.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can
14 matches
Mail list logo
