Github user mateiz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-70713941
Thanks, looks good!
---
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
Github user pwendell commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-70469696
LGTM I will pull it in.
---
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 asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897
---
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 SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-70448381
[Test build #25738 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/25738/consoleFull)
for PR 3897 at commit
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-70445416
[Test build #25734 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/25734/consoleFull)
for PR 3897 at commit
Github user jongyoul commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-70444764
Rebase is not finished.
---
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 jongyoul commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-70445944
retest this please.
---
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
Github user jongyoul commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-70455615
@mateiz I've rebased this PR and finished tests successfully. Merge this,
please.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-70445835
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-70445832
[Test build #25732 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/25732/consoleFull)
for PR 3897 at commit
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-70447740
[Test build #25734 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/25734/consoleFull)
for PR 3897 at commit
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-70447746
Test FAILed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-70452235
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-70452231
[Test build #25738 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/25738/consoleFull)
for PR 3897 at commit
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-70441182
[Test build #25732 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/25732/consoleFull)
for PR 3897 at commit
Github user mateiz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-70352037
@jongyoul sorry for the delayed reply, but this looks good. Mind rebasing
it on master though? It's now fallen behind.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can
Github user jongyoul commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-70357960
@mateiz I'll rebase this PR from master.
---
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 jongyoul commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-70091436
@mateiz Check this PR finally. I think It would be good by your review.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69887660
[Test build #25533 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/25533/consoleFull)
for PR 3897 at commit
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69895339
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69895327
[Test build #25533 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/25533/consoleFull)
for PR 3897 at commit
Github user mateiz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69851789
Coarse and fine-grained mode are different on purpose, I don't think it
makes sense to merge those. BTW have you tested both of them on this?
---
If your project is set
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69853589
[Test build #25494 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/25494/consoleFull)
for PR 3897 at commit
Github user jongyoul commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69869621
@mateiz Passed tests. Please review it again.
---
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 AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69861721
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69861711
[Test build #25494 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/25494/consoleFull)
for PR 3897 at commit
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69866075
[Test build #25502 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/25502/consoleFull)
for PR 3897 at commit
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69866080
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69858746
Test FAILed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69858737
[Test build #25497 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/25497/consoleFull)
for PR 3897 at commit
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69860098
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69860096
[Test build #25495 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/25495/consoleFull)
for PR 3897 at commit
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69861125
[Test build #25502 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/25502/consoleFull)
for PR 3897 at commit
Github user jongyoul commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69852696
@mateiz I've test it both mode.
---
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 jongyoul commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69854241
@mateiz I've fixed weird codes by your comments and added test case whether
`spark.executor.uri` exists or not.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to
Github user jongyoul commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69860759
retest this please.I don't know why that simple test fails.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as
Github user jongyoul commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69854510
@mateiz Could you please explain the purposes of coarse and fine-grained
mode shortly? It looks similar. The only difference between two modes is the
way to offer
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69854530
[Test build #25497 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/25497/consoleFull)
for PR 3897 at commit
Github user jongyoul commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69750256
Please review this PR
---
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
Github user mateiz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69845802
This looks okay, but is there any motivation for it other than getting rid
of that source file?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and
Github user mateiz commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#discussion_r22906863
--- Diff:
core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/scheduler/cluster/mesos/MesosSchedulerBackend.scala
---
@@ -118,14 +119,16 @@ private[spark] class
Github user jongyoul commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69846860
@mateiz That's all, but I think it is meaningful to remove some redundant
codes and helps understand codes easy. And I wonder why that code exists. I
think
Github user jongyoul commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#discussion_r22907250
--- Diff:
core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/scheduler/cluster/mesos/MesosSchedulerBackend.scala
---
@@ -118,14 +119,16 @@ private[spark] class
Github user jongyoul commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69517992
/cc @mateiz How about this patch? I don't know who maintains mesos' codes
mainly. Because you are one of committers of mesos, I ask you to review this
simple PR, which
Github user jongyoul commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-69289262
@JoshRosen @tgravescs @andrewor14 Could anyone review this PR? That makes
mesos codes clean
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-68680860
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-68680857
[Test build #25051 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/25051/consoleFull)
for PR 3897 at commit
Github user tnachen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-68812132
I'm not part of that history either, I just want to know the motivation
since the PR doesn't say anything.
For code cleanup it does make sense.
Your patch looks
Github user jongyoul commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-68811850
@tnachen On the contrary, why mesos has two different launcher? I couldn't
find any idea in a history of that codes, and spark-executor calls spark-class
which has a
Github user jongyoul commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-68812741
@tnachen I'm sorry for not having any comment. I think that this PR is very
clear to guess my opinion.
@pwendell Please review this PR which makes some mesos
Github user tnachen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-68771803
What's the motivation for this change?
---
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
GitHub user jongyoul opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897
[SPARK-5088] Use spark-class for running executors directly
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/jongyoul/spark SPARK-5088
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3897#issuecomment-68676178
[Test build #25051 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/25051/consoleFull)
for PR 3897 at commit
53 matches
Mail list logo
