Github user avulanov commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/1270#issuecomment-49258079
@mengxr I've fixed Scala style
---
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 chenghao-intel commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/1439#issuecomment-49258632
@yhuai @concretevitamin thanks for the commenting, I've updated the
description in Jira, can you please jump there and take a look?
---
If your project is set
Github user chenghao-intel commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/1439#issuecomment-49258678
Sorry, forgot to paste the link.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-2523
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
Github user mateiz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/1452#issuecomment-49259226
How does this interact with state cleanup, I guess the broadcast var
becomes dereferenced when the RDD does? We may want to add some tests for that.
---
If your project
Github user mateiz commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/1452#discussion_r15041456
--- Diff: core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/rdd/RDD.scala ---
@@ -1195,21 +1195,28 @@ abstract class RDD[T: ClassTag](
/**
* Return whether
Github user mateiz commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/1452#discussion_r15041454
--- Diff: core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/rdd/RDD.scala ---
@@ -1195,21 +1195,28 @@ abstract class RDD[T: ClassTag](
/**
* Return whether
Github user mateiz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/1452#issuecomment-49259391
Also, this doesn't deal with the closure for an *action* being large. That
can be done as a separate JIRA but have you looked at that?
---
If your project is set up for
Github user rxin commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/1452#issuecomment-49259394
That was actually my main concern from the beginning with this change. From
my initial observation everything does seem work. I intentionally avoided
keeping references to
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/1439#issuecomment-49259426
QA tests have started for PR 1439. This patch merges cleanly. brView
progress:
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/16766/consoleFull
---
Github user rxin commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/1452#issuecomment-49259482
Yes - actions were intentionally not broadcast for now. It makes it more
complicated ... let's do that in a separate PR.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/931#issuecomment-49260071
QA tests have started for PR 931. This patch DID NOT merge cleanly!
brView progress:
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/16767/consoleFull
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/931#issuecomment-49260098
QA results for PR 931:br- This patch FAILED unit tests.brbrFor more
information see test
Github user markhamstra commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/1362#discussion_r15041791
--- Diff: core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/scheduler/DAGScheduler.scala
---
@@ -1107,7 +1106,6 @@ class DAGScheduler(
case shufDep:
Github user mateiz commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/1447#discussion_r15042032
--- Diff: core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/rdd/PairRDDFunctions.scala
---
@@ -216,17 +216,17 @@ class PairRDDFunctions[K, V](self: RDD[(K, V)])
Github user mateiz commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/1447#discussion_r15042052
--- Diff: core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/rdd/PairRDDFunctions.scala
---
@@ -571,12 +571,7 @@ class PairRDDFunctions[K, V](self: RDD[(K, V)])
Github user mateiz commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/1447#discussion_r15042054
--- Diff: core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/rdd/PairRDDFunctions.scala
---
@@ -589,9 +584,7 @@ class PairRDDFunctions[K, V](self: RDD[(K, V)])
Github user mateiz commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/1447#discussion_r15042061
--- Diff: core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/rdd/PairRDDFunctions.scala
---
@@ -604,11 +597,7 @@ class PairRDDFunctions[K, V](self: RDD[(K, V)])
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/1450#issuecomment-49261240
QA results for PR 1450:br- This patch FAILED unit tests.br- This patch
merges cleanlybr- This patch adds no public classesbrbrFor more
information see test
301 - 318 of 318 matches
Mail list logo
