Skip to content

spark 3.0.0 module (ES 6.5) #1495

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from
Closed

spark 3.0.0 module (ES 6.5) #1495

wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

avnerl
Copy link

@avnerl avnerl commented Jul 1, 2020

added spark 3.0.0 module to branch 6.5

@avnerl avnerl changed the title spark 3.0.0 module spark 3.0.0 module (ES 6.5) Jul 7, 2020
@mmigdiso
Copy link

mmigdiso commented Jul 7, 2020

Btw, although I desperately need this feature (and I have a fork on which Ive added scala 212+spark3.0 support), I think
@jbaiera may not merge this.
see #1308
and
#1423

On the other hand, I believe that we should somehow unblock this situation....

@avnerl
Copy link
Author

avnerl commented Jul 7, 2020

Btw, although I desperately need this feature (and I have a fork on which Ive added scala 212+spark3.0 support), I think the @jbaiera may not merge this.
see #1308
and
#1423

On the other hand, I believe that we should somehow unblock this situation....

well, this is pending for too long, IMHO.

merge or not - this fork was tested on a live environment where we write dataframes to elasticsearch.
tech stack (for those curious):

  • spark 3.0.0 on k8s 1.15.3
  • elastic 6.5.4
  • hadoop 2.7.3

tests works for all hadoop distros:

./gradlew -Pdistro=hadoopStable
./gradlew -Pdistro=hadoopYarn
./gradlew -Pdistro=hadoopYarn3

@jbaiera
Copy link
Member

jbaiera commented Jul 14, 2020

I understand the frustration with the speed that we've been moving toward supporting newer versions of Spark. There is a lot that needs to happen in order for the project to get there, but we've been making steady progress to that end. That said, I don't think this PR can be accepted in its current form for a number of reasons. First and foremost, this is targeting 6.5, which is an end of life version line. There will be no more releases for this version, so there's not much reason to make changes to the branch that will not see the light of day in a release. Secondly, I'm not sure how compatible this PR is with the number of changes we've already made to the build process in the main line. There may need to be a number of changes implemented before it can be accepted.

@avnerl
Copy link
Author

avnerl commented Jul 14, 2020

I understand the frustration with the speed that we've been moving toward supporting newer versions of Spark. There is a lot that needs to happen in order for the project to get there, but we've been making steady progress to that end. That said, I don't think this PR can be accepted in its current form for a number of reasons. First and foremost, this is targeting 6.5, which is an end of life version line. There will be no more releases for this version, so there's not much reason to make changes to the branch that will not see the light of day in a release. Secondly, I'm not sure how compatible this PR is with the number of changes we've already made to the build process in the main line. There may need to be a number of changes implemented before it can be accepted.

that is unfortunate, I was just about opening a new spark 3.0.0 pull request into master branch but stopped everything since @mmigdiso alerted me to the fact that my efforts will go to waste since you started some code overhaul.

@jbaiera
Copy link
Member

jbaiera commented Jul 14, 2020

For what it's worth, the code overhaul is being developed in master directly, much of the work is done in there already, so there are probably only a few changes that would need to be made. I'm happy to help with figuring those things out as well. All help is appreciated!

In the mean time, I'm going to close this PR out. We can address any PR feedback on the new PR if you feel inclined to work on it still. If not, no worries.

@jbaiera jbaiera closed this Jul 14, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants