Skip to content

Conversation

@tgravescs
Copy link
Contributor

@tgravescs tgravescs commented Dec 2, 2020

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Revert SPARK-33504 on branch-3.0 compilation error. Original PR #30446

This reverts commit e59179b.

Why are the changes needed?

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

How was this patch tested?

…server contains sensitive attributes should be redacted"

This reverts commit e59179b.
@tgravescs
Copy link
Contributor Author

@dongjoon-hyun @akiyamaneko

@dongjoon-hyun dongjoon-hyun changed the title [SPARK-33504][FOLLOWUP][BRANCH-3.0]Revert SPARK-33504 on branch-3.0 compilation error Revert "[SPARK-33504][CORE] The application log in the Spark history server contains sensitive attributes should be redacted" Dec 2, 2020
Copy link
Member

@dongjoon-hyun dongjoon-hyun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+1, LGTM. Thank you for the quick fix, @tgravescs .

@tgravescs
Copy link
Contributor Author

cores tests passes, I'm going to commit since breaking build

asfgit pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 2, 2020
…server contains sensitive attributes should be redacted"

### What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Revert SPARK-33504 on branch-3.0 compilation error. Original PR #30446

This reverts commit e59179b.

### Why are the changes needed?

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?

### How was this patch tested?

Closes #30576 from tgravescs/revert33504.

Authored-by: Thomas Graves <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Graves <[email protected]>
@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member

Thanks!

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Dec 2, 2020

Test build #132069 has finished for PR 30576 at commit f7bf221.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@mridulm
Copy link
Contributor

mridulm commented Dec 3, 2020

Late LGTM, thanks @tgravescs !

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.

4 participants