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 1EC40999C for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:12:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 22208 invoked by uid 500); 18 Apr 2012 17:12:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-common-dev-archive@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 22131 invoked by uid 500); 18 Apr 2012 17:12:12 -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 22123 invoked by uid 99); 18 Apr 2012 17:12:12 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:12:12 +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 (nike.apache.org: domain of tucu@cloudera.com designates 209.85.214.176 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.176] (HELO mail-ob0-f176.google.com) (209.85.214.176) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:12:05 +0000 Received: by obbup19 with SMTP id up19so5121180obb.35 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:11:44 -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=jE0RRevM20EMDOH84V6u3R447588g3HGqR/RebkjtI8=; b=QE0ygWmFAH8p6mBHWyw4PsuWGVsFFDFIEuCM1l4BYg8d5QPf8a7e7AQmtgJF0VPIJy kqo4NvHNcNj9Ep7nn88upWDM1PgnPWJSSZnArk6pRKGtBqQRtlPIg+Sg23C6vVU2Netc 0r8ew/HSA76NL8GL7icRW9AWdFQfN+MP7BVyBtPPhJwDKRany10J/eLHQClN9EXpiAPL x4cr1ungqBW/xXvUutm/Ii2YAVVR8At1J+bjbryVlfMW1Y4aAxrcPMX0mxpXYWgFTA4W t4n4IGwP0wG9yIke1YvyNSx2nhExL6Apci27/1oIkJqf7C6hTmUEYjmrSu26ifzKaNgR fNFg== Received: by 10.182.0.48 with SMTP id 16mr4272736obb.23.1334769104017; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:11:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.34.163 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:11:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Alejandro Abdelnur Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:11:13 -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: ALoCoQnso+Lllwz8Pj4EQQOMoTVpGEcwBQIvPMRj6GR7uj0bYrA6B8Qy9rjrXeoY3rnzRihp93wZ Giri, On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Giridharan Kesavan wrote: > Alejandro, > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur wrote: >> Giri, >> >> I agree that running ALL tests all time takes a lot of time >> (personally I'd prefer we do this at the penalty of longer runs). >> >> Still we have a problem to solve, we need to find a solution on >> test-patch working for ALL maven modules, currently changes outside of >> common/hdfs/mapred or cross-projects test-patch does not work. >> >> So, how about the following approach: >> >> * All patches must be at trunk/ level >> * All patches do a full clean TARBALL creation without running testcases >> * From the patch file we find out the maven modules and for those >> modules we do javac-warns/javadoc-warns/findbugs/testcases > > I like this approach of doing a clean tarball. > and doing the other checks ( javac warnings, javadoc warnings, findbug > warnings and release audit.) > for that specific module. > Great, the idea of the doing a clean tarball it to ensure that nothing in the build/assembly is broken and that no API change breaks other modules. >> >> This would speed up test-patch runs and together with a nightly >> jenkins jobs running ALL testcases would give a complete coverage. >> > > test-patch and nightly jenkins jobs running ALL testcase? > could you pls explain this? you want to verify there is no regression because of functional changes in all modules, doing this once a day seems reasonable and will help identify the culprit early on (that is why I said in my original email my preference would be to run everything every time) thxs --- Alejandro