[SPARK-28869][DOCS][FOLLOWUP] Add direct relationship between configs for rolling event log #27576
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
… for rolling event log
|
cc. @HyukjinKwon |
|
Test build #118399 has finished for PR 27576 at commit
|
|
retest this, please |
|
Test build #118405 has finished for PR 27576 at commit
|
|
retest this please |
HyukjinKwon
reviewed
Feb 14, 2020
| private[spark] val EVENT_LOG_ROLLING_MAX_FILE_SIZE = | ||
| ConfigBuilder("spark.eventLog.rolling.maxFileSize") | ||
| .doc("The max size of event log file to be rolled over.") | ||
| .doc(s"Precondition: ${EVENT_LOG_ENABLE_ROLLING.key}. " + |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay, I saw the new PR #27575. We could match how we describe there. Shall we also fix docs/configuration.md?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice catch! I missed we have equivalent description in doc as well. Will update as well.
|
Test build #118415 has finished for PR 27576 at commit
|
HeartSaVioR
force-pushed
the
SPARK-28869-FOLLOWUP-doc
branch
from
ff2170f to
705d129
Compare
|
Picked existing style from #27575, and updated here as well. |
|
Test build #118474 has finished for PR 27576 at commit
|
|
Thanks @HeartSaVioR for folliwing up this one. |
|
Merged to master and branch-3.0. |
HyukjinKwon
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 17, 2020
… for rolling event log ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This patch addresses the post-hoc review comment linked here - #25670 (comment) ### Why are the changes needed? We would like to explicitly document the direct relationship before we finish up structuring of configurations. ### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? N/A Closes #27576 from HeartSaVioR/SPARK-28869-FOLLOWUP-doc. Authored-by: Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: HyukjinKwon <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 446b2d2) Signed-off-by: HyukjinKwon <[email protected]>
|
Thanks for reviewing and merging! |
sjincho
pushed a commit
to sjincho/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 15, 2020
… for rolling event log ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This patch addresses the post-hoc review comment linked here - apache#25670 (comment) ### Why are the changes needed? We would like to explicitly document the direct relationship before we finish up structuring of configurations. ### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? N/A Closes apache#27576 from HeartSaVioR/SPARK-28869-FOLLOWUP-doc. Authored-by: Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: HyukjinKwon <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This patch addresses the post-hoc review comment linked here - #25670 (comment)
Why are the changes needed?
We would like to explicitly document the direct relationship before we finish up structuring of configurations.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
N/A