accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <md...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Time for a 1.8.0 release?
Date Wed, 03 Aug 2016 22:34:59 GMT
I had all of the tests passing at least once for 1.7.2, some had to be
rerun however.

On Wednesday, August 3, 2016, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:47 PM Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > My understanding was that maintenance releases (aka double dot, e.g.
> > 1.7.2) had relaxed criteria because we expected the scope of changes
> > in them to be more limited. Even so, the release notes for 1.7.2,
> > 1.7.1, and 1.7.0 all claim the ITs passed.
> >
> >
> Even those releases have periodic IT failure.
>
>
> > Is there a reason we can't parallelize the ITs?
>
>
> We can. Eric's mrit effort was all intended towards that. But, that's not
> the same as CI passing. I don't know what it would take to parallelize them
> in a CI server.
>
>
> > What's stopping
> > builds.a.o from running them? Specific requests from projects to asf
> > infra can get us resources if that's the problem.
> >
> >
> I spoke to infra in HipChat about this a a few weeks ago, and mentioned a
> few things which impact builds on ASF jenkins (builds.apache.org):
>
> 1. Accumulo has an excessive number of tests to run.
> 2. Build timeouts with Jenkins can abort builds.
> 3. Tests are timing sensitive, and are affected by VM/host configuration
> and contention with other concurrent builds from other projects.
> 4. Tests need lots of RAM and storage (at least 4GB RAM, but ideally no
> less than 16GB, and at least 6 GB for a workspace)
> 5. Tests need specialized system configuration, (increasing ulimits,
> optimizing kernel settings for swappiness, etc.)
>
> What we really need for reliable IT passing in CI, is exclusive use of
> dedicated, bare-metal beefy build machines, for 6+ hours per build x 4
> branches minimum, plus another 6+ hours for each pull request and other
> builds which skipITs, so we can get immediate feedback on unit tests and
> compilation errors.
>
> I don't think it's reasonable for us to even ask for such resources from
> INFRA. Using ASF Jenkins for -DskipITs I think is reasonable, with
> individual testing of full IT suite from the developers/contributors, as
> well as feedback from independent dedicated CI builds (such as the Jenkins
> server I'm running, as well as any Josh might still be running, and
> others).
>
> The minimum passing to create a release candidate is -Psunny. Usually folks
> submit test results on the full ITs which informed their vote. Sometimes,
> but not always, the release manager will do some pre-vote testing and
> prepare draft release notes. Testing information also gets aggregated from
> the vote thread onto the release notes.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message