asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Carey <>
Subject Re: Migration of git repository
Date Thu, 04 Jun 2015 22:45:10 GMT
Just a quick high-level note from our nearest equivalent of the 
pointy-haired Dilbert guy (aka me):  What would be nice is to have 
Hyracks changes kick off tests of all "supported client projects" - 
AsterixDB, VXQuery, maybe also Pregelix, IMRU, and possibly others in 
the future.  I don't think we'll ever prevent such downstream things 
from being broken unless we run their tests - so I would suggest that we 
need a mechanism to keep Hyracks changes from being permitted to happen 
without verifying the ongoing integrity of all "blessed" (priority 1) 
affected projects....  We could have an agreed upon list of such 
projects and tests for each....  It would be nice to have a "quick 
check" (hello world still works, basics are working) that was 
synchronously blocking of such changes, and at least a daily 
verification that all's totally well (AFAWK) for them all.

Not sure how this affects the still two-sided discussion...  :-)


On 6/2/15 10:00 AM, Chris Hillery wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Yingyi Bu <> wrote:
>> In my opinion,  merging the repository doesn't break the separation of
>> hyracks and asterixdb, because the dependencies are controlled by mvn pom
>> files.
> That wasn't the separation I was talking about. I meant API separation. As
> it is now, when we make a change to both Asterix and Hyracks, we are forced
> to consider the API implications, or at least they are put out there in a
> very clear way that we need to look at. If we merge them, people will
> (rightly) treat the whole thing as one product, and there will be no brakes
> on making wide-ranging API changes.
> (As an aside: I don't trust Maven's pom files to do a good job of keeping
> the dependency management clean. In fact I trust it to do precisely the
> opposite, by making it both easier to screw up the dependencies and harder
> to update them in future.)
> Again, my point is this: If we truly believe that Hyracks is a re-usable
> component, it should be treated as such from source to build to delivery.
> By merging in Asterix, we are saying that Asterix is "more equal" than
> others Hyracks clients, to the point that we're tacitly willing to break
> those other clients in favor of simplifying Asterix development. If that is
> a fair and true statement, well, then, sure, let's merge them.
> 1) It forces those hyracks-only changes to pass asterixdb regression
>> tests.  Currently hyracks-only change are not verified by asterixdb tests.
> This is a good point, I will admit. However, I think this same goal can be
> met in other ways. My strong preference would be to create a set of true
> API tests inside of Hyracks, which both document and test the external
> Hyracks API. That will make API-breaking changes in future much easier to
> spot, and also make it clear when Asterix is using internal APIs that it
> should not.
>> 2) On my local machine,  I don't need to always install hyracks and then
>> verify asterixdb from time to time.  Especially, switching branches seems
>> painful because the installed hyracks snapshot is overwritten from time to
>> time.
> I haven't tried working on multiple Hyracks branches at the same time, so I
> haven't experienced this. This seems like a working method error, though.
> If you're working with two things that are "the same version" (even if
> that's a snapshot version), you'll need to use separate Maven repositories
> to install them. In fact, merging the two git repositories would do nothing
> to fix this problem, will it? If the proposal is to put the two source
> repositories in the same git repo but otherwise leave them untouched, then
> nothing would change in the build process. It's possible I'm missing
> something there, though.
>> 3) I only need to make one code review request and one jenkins job.
>> Currently I need to manually change the topic of my asterixdb gerrit CL
>> every time before I update my hyracks CL, and then manually schedule
>> jenkins to run a new asterixdb job.  If I forget to schedule the jenkins
>> job, the asterixdb CL is still shown to be "verified by jenkins".
> This is a problem, but it's a problem in commit validation, not in the
> source. Modifying the source to work around these issues is still a bad
> idea IMHO.
> The "change-topic" issue could be fixed with a bit of development work
> (have the topic point to a change, rather than a specific patchset on the
> change, so you only need to set it once, for instance).
> As for manually scheduling Asterix Jenkins jobs, that sounds like it's only
> a problem where your Hyracks change breaks an existing public API. That
> would be obviated by having true API testing inside of Hyracks, which is
> something that we should have regardless of any decisions about source
> locations.
> In summary / repeating myself again: yes, we have some problems because
> Hyracks and Asterix are in seperate repositories. But those problems are
> pointing out true issues with our development and processes. Merging the
> repositories isn't fixing those problems, it's sweeping them under the rug.
> Long term we would be much better off to identify, isolate, and fix the
> problems themselves.
> Ceej
> aka Chris Hillery

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