Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hadoop-common-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-common-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B3B59C44 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 21:15:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 58588 invoked by uid 500); 16 Apr 2012 21:15:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-common-dev-archive@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 58532 invoked by uid 500); 16 Apr 2012 21:15:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact common-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list common-dev@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 58524 invoked by uid 99); 16 Apr 2012 21:15:37 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 21:15:37 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of tucu@cloudera.com designates 209.85.161.176 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.161.176] (HELO mail-gx0-f176.google.com) (209.85.161.176) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 21:15:32 +0000 Received: by ggcs6 with SMTP id s6so3512999ggc.35 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:15:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=sOeS46VxUxkII+w/DuKYzWg5mV4ksH37lkOyS/Jvv0A=; b=f4ybhpX5HYKLkZebIdmdl9Hkclcu93JzuZdyDoyPqYqKTPPBhn0a1PHJQLVgBO3cRM iYKyJkA8LRmV/KEZE7yD7RXQMpdirPZyuofR7nJJY5OK5Nyls4PB+UOnzbtjNC+j0jsa 5ABB3Y90BlJFbj9+//op43sWhT9TvNItvKmA4bZJUGjuEUYN3IQV2G+o2QEt+6dtjYsh UTqS8viGyw9MsZdt8angIhT0DoeOlf/T46nzTnCkDnTqewq29rF4Wvo2rfgVQF4yM/9D 5rdjYv9ezqp65Fx+fOtHLR66ufJ+yTWmGLFfjAVaHoFu4whstajpOFEZNlzgyofik2GV 0VoQ== Received: by 10.60.10.137 with SMTP id i9mr19043585oeb.23.1334610911810; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:15:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.76.134 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:14:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Alejandro Abdelnur Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:14:41 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Supporting cross-project Jenkins builds To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl1O+ejl5t9dgi7WY3NDGjX7tadRn+oFuLHOU0snsSKiELEiclVaB7sJrQU9Bs2z05Fkv91 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org +1, I'd still go a bit further in the simplification of what testpatch does. * patches must at root level (not even try to be smart) * all testcases should always be run (else a change in hdfs could affect yarn/tools but not be detected, or one in yarn affect tools) Thxs. Alejandro On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Aaron T. Myers wrote: > +1 > > This JIRA has been sitting patch available for a few weeks: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-7416 > > I don't think it's quite ready for prime time (it doesn't implement all the > features you described) but it'd be a good starting point if someone wanted > to take it over the finish line. > > -- > Aaron T. Myers > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Tom White wrote: > >> Currently Jenkins QA builds don't support cross-project patches, since >> they try to apply them to the hadoop-{common,hdfs,mapreduce}-project >> tree, and reject any patches that are not strictly confined to that >> tree. For changes that span projects (e.g. moving code from HDFS or MR >> to Common, or build system changes) developers have to run test-patch >> and tests manually, which is cumbersome. >> >> I'd like to propose that we change the Common Jenkins build so that it >> runs from the top-level >> (http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/common/trunk). The HDFS and >> MapReduce builds would be unchanged. This would have two implications: >> i) all patches would have to be rooted at the top-level, and ii) the >> unit tests for all projects would be run for Common changes. >> >> I think i) is reasonable (and most patches are like this now) - and >> it's easy to regenerate a patch that is rooted at the wrong level. For >> ii), running all tests for a change in Common is probably a good thing >> to do in general. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Tom >> -- Alejandro