hadoop-common-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Boudnik <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk
Date Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:17:42 GMT
It doesn't look like any progress has been done on the ticket below in the
last 3 weeks. And now branch-2 can't be compiled because of 

hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hdfs/TestDFSShell.java:[895,15]
WINDOWS is not public in org.apache.hadoop.fs.Path; cannot be accessed from
outside package

That's exactly why I was -1'ing this...
  Cos

On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 05:41PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Thanks, gentlemen.  I've opened and taken responsibility for
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9359.  Giri Kesavan has agreed
> to help with the parts that require Jenkins admin access.
> 
> Thanks,
> --Matt
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <shv.hadoop@gmail.com>wrote:
> 
> > +1 on the merge.
> >
> > I am glad we agreed.
> > Having Jira to track the CI effort is a good idea.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --Konstantin
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Matt Foley <mfoley@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks.  I agree Windows -1's in test-patch should not block commits.
> > >
> > > --Matt
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <
> > shv.hadoop@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Matt Foley <mfoley@hortonworks.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > Konstantine, you have voted -1, and stated some requirements before
> > >> > you'll
> > >> > withdraw that -1.  As I plan to do work to fulfill those
> > requirements, I
> > >> > want to make sure that what I'm proposing will, in fact, satisfy you.
> > >> > That's why I'm asking, if we implement full "test-patch" integration
> > for
> > >> > Windows, does it seem to you that that would provide adequate support?
> > >>
> > >> Yes.
> > >>
> > >> > I have learned not to presume that my interpretation is correct. 
My
> > >> > interpretation of item #1 is that test-patch provides pre-commit
> > build,
> > >> > so
> > >> > it would satisfy item #1.  But rather than assuming that I am
> > >> > interpreting
> > >> > it correctly, I simply want your agreement that it would, or if not,
> > >> > clarification why it won't.
> > >>
> > >> I agree it will satisfy my item #1.
> > >> I did not agree in my previous email, but I changed my mind based on
> > >> the latest discussion. I have to explain why now.
> > >> I was proposing nightly build because I did not want pre-commit build
> > >> for Windows block commits to Linux. But if people are fine just ignoring
> > >> -1s for the Windows part of the build it should be good.
> > >>
> > >> > Regarding item #2, it is also my interpretation that test-patch
> > provides
> > >> > an
> > >> > on-demand (perhaps 20-minutes deferred) Jenkins build and unit test,
> > >> > with
> > >> > logs available to the developer, so it would satisfy item #2.  But
> > >> > rather
> > >> > than assuming that I am interpreting it correctly, I simply want your
> > >> > agreement that it would, or if not, clarification why it won't.
> > >>
> > >> It will satisfy my item #2 in the following way:
> > >> I can duplicate your pre-commit build for Windows and add an input
> > >> parameter, which would let people run the build on their patches
> > >> chosen from local machine rather than attaching them to Jiras.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> --Konstantin
> > >>
> > >> > In agile terms, you are the Owner of these requirements.  Please give
> > me
> > >> > owner feedback as to whether my proposed work sounds like it will
> > >> > satisfy
> > >> > the requirements.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thank you,
> > >> > --Matt
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
> > >> > <shv.hadoop@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Didn't I explain in details what I am asking for?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thanks,
> > >> >> --Konst
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Matt Foley <mfoley@hortonworks.com>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> > Hi Konstantin,
> > >> >> > I'd like to point out two things:
> > >> >> > First, I already committed in this thread (email of Thu,
Feb 28,
> > 2013
> > >> >> > at
> > >> >> > 6:01 PM) to providing CI for Windows builds.  So please stop
acting
> > >> >> > like
> > >> >> > I'm
> > >> >> > resisting this idea or something.
> > >> >> > Second, you didn't answer my question, you just kvetched
about the
> > >> >> > phrasing.
> > >> >> > So I ask again:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Will providing full "test-patch" integration (pre-commit
build and
> > >> >> > unit
> > >> >> > test
> > >> >> > triggered by Jira "Patch Available" state) satisfy your request
for
> > >> >> > functionality #1 and #2?  Yes or no, please.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Thanks,
> > >> >> > --Matt
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
> > >> >> > <shv.hadoop@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > wrote:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Hi Matt,
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Matt Foley <
> > mfoley@hortonworks.com>
> > >> >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> >> > Konstantin,
> > >> >> >> > I would like to explore what it would take to remove
this
> > >> >> >> > perceived
> > >> >> >> > impediment --
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Glad you decided to explore. Thank you.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> > although I reserve the right to argue that this
is not
> > >> >> >> > pre-requisite to merging the cross-platform support
patch.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> It's your right indeed. So as mine to question what the
platform
> > >> >> >> support means for you, which I believe remained unclear.
> > >> >> >> I do not impede the change as you should have noticed.
My
> > >> >> >> requirement
> > >> >> >> comes from my perception of the support, which means
to me exactly
> > >> >> >> two
> > >> >> >> things:
> > >> >> >> 1. The ability to recognise the code is broken for the
platform
> > >> >> >> 2. The ability to test new patches on the platform
> > >> >> >> The latter is problematic, as many noticed in this thread,
for
> > those
> > >> >> >> whose customary environment does not include Windows.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> > If we implemented full "test-patch" support for
Windows on
> > trunk,
> > >> >> >> > would
> > >> >> >> > that
> > >> >> >> > fulfill both your items #1 and #2?  Please note
that:
> > >> >> >> > a) Pushing the "Patch Available" button in Jira
shall cause a
> > >> >> >> > pre-commit
> > >> >> >> > build to start within, I believe, 20 minutes.
> > >> >> >> > b) That build keeps logs for both java build and
unit tests for
> > >> >> >> > several
> > >> >> >> > days, that are accessible to all viewers.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> In item #1 I mostly asking for the nightly build, which
is simpler
> > >> >> >> than "test-patch". The latter would be ideal from the
platform
> > >> >> >> support
> > >> >> >> viewpoint, but it is for the community to decide if we
want to add
> > >> >> >> extra +3 hours to the build.
> > >> >> >> Nightly build in my understanding is triggered by the
timer rather
> > >> >> >> than by Jira's "submit patch" button.  On Jenkins build
> > >> >> >> configuration
> > >> >> >> you can specify it under "Build periodically".
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> > So, does this provide sufficient on-demand support
that we don't
> > >> >> >> > have
> > >> >> >> > to
> > >> >> >> > implement a whole new on-demand VM support structure
of some
> > sort
> > >> >> >> > for
> > >> >> >> > #2
> > >> >> >> > (which would be an extraordinary and impractical
demand)?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> I did not mention VMs. Item #2 means a build, which runs
> > >> >> >> "test-patch"
> > >> >> >> target with the file specified by a user (instead of
a jira
> > >> >> >> attachment).
> > >> >> >> When user clicks "Build Now" link a box is displayed
where the
> > user
> > >> >> >> can enter the file path containing the patch. This can
be
> > specified
> > >> >> >> in
> > >> >> >> the Build Configuration under "This build is parameterized"
by
> > >> >> >> choosing AddParameter / FileParameter. The build can
run on the
> > same
> > >> >> >> Windows machine as the nightly build.
> > >> >> >> Such build will let people test their patches for Windows
on
> > Jenkins
> > >> >> >> if they don't posses a license for the right version
of Windows.
> > >> >> >> I hope this will not turn into extraordinary or impractical
> > effort.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Thanks,
> > >> >> >> --Konst
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> > Thanks,
> > >> >> >> > --Matt
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
> > >> >> >> > <shv.hadoop@gmail.com>
> > >> >> >> > wrote:
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> -1
> > >> >> >> >> We should have a CI infrastructure in place
before we can
> > commit
> > >> >> >> >> to
> > >> >> >> >> supporting Windows platform.
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> Eric is right Win/Cygwin was supported since
day one.
> > >> >> >> >> I had a Windows box under my desk running nightly
builds back
> > in
> > >> >> >> >> 2006-07.
> > >> >> >> >> People were irritated but I was filing windows
bugs until 0.22
> > >> >> >> >> release.
> > >> >> >> >> Times changing and I am glad to see wider support
for Win
> > >> >> >> >> platform.
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> But in order to make it work you guys need to
put the CI
> > process
> > >> >> >> >> in
> > >> >> >> >> place
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> 1. windows jenkins build: could be nightly or
PreCommit.
> > >> >> >> >> - Nightly would mean that changes can be committed
to trunk
> > based
> > >> >> >> >> on
> > >> >> >> >> linux PreCommit build. And people will file
bugs if the change
> > >> >> >> >> broke
> > >> >> >> >> Windows nightly build.
> > >> >> >> >> - PreCommit-win build will mean automatic reporting
failed
> > tests
> > >> >> >> >> to
> > >> >> >> >> respective jira blocking commits the same way
as it is now with
> > >> >> >> >> linux
> > >> >> >> >> PreCommit builds.
> > >> >> >> >> We should discuss which way is more efficient
for developers.
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> 2. On-demand-windows Jenkins build.
> > >> >> >> >> I see it as a build to which I can attach my
patch and the
> > build
> > >> >> >> >> will
> > >> >> >> >> run my changes on a dedicated windows box.
> > >> >> >> >> That way people can test their changes without
having personal
> > >> >> >> >> windows
> > >> >> >> >> nodes.
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> I think this is the minimal set of requirement
for us to be
> > able
> > >> >> >> >> to
> > >> >> >> >> commit to the new platform.
> > >> >> >> >> Right now I see only one windows related build
> > >> >> >> >> https://builds.apache.org/view/Hadoop/job/Hadoop-1-win/
> > >> >> >> >> Which was failing since Sept 8, 2012 and did
not run in the
> > last
> > >> >> >> >> month.
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> Thanks,
> > >> >> >> >> --Konst
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Eric Baldeschwieler
> > >> >> >> >> <eric14@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> > +1 (non-binding)
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> > A few of observations:
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> > - Windows has actually been a supported
platform for Hadoop
> > >> >> >> >> > since
> > >> >> >> >> > 0.1
> > >> >> >> >> > .
> > >> >> >> >> > Doug championed supporting windows then
and we've continued
> > to
> > >> >> >> >> > do
> > >> >> >> >> > it
> > >> >> >> >> > with
> > >> >> >> >> > varying vigor over time.  To my knowledge
we've never made a
> > >> >> >> >> > decision
> > >> >> >> >> > to
> > >> >> >> >> > drop windows support.  The change here
is improving our
> > support
> > >> >> >> >> > and
> > >> >> >> >> > dropping
> > >> >> >> >> > the requirement of cigwin.  We had Nutch
windows users on the
> > >> >> >> >> > list
> > >> >> >> >> > in
> > >> >> >> >> > 2006
> > >> >> >> >> > and we've been supporting windows FS requirements
since
> > >> >> >> >> > inception.
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> > - A little pragmatism will go a long way.
 As a community
> > we've
> > >> >> >> >> > got
> > >> >> >> >> > to
> > >> >> >> >> > stay committed to keeping hadoop simple
(so it does work on
> > >> >> >> >> > many
> > >> >> >> >> > platforms)
> > >> >> >> >> > and extending it to take advantage of key
emerging
> > OS/hardware
> > >> >> >> >> > features,
> > >> >> >> >> > such as containers, new FSs, virtualization,
flash ...  We
> > >> >> >> >> > should
> > >> >> >> >> > all
> > >> >> >> >> > plan
> > >> >> >> >> > to let new features & optimizations
emerge that don't work
> > >> >> >> >> > everywhere, if
> > >> >> >> >> > they are compelling and central to hadoop's
mission of being
> > >> >> >> >> > THE
> > >> >> >> >> > best
> > >> >> >> >> > fabric
> > >> >> >> >> > for storing and processing big data.
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> > - A UI project like KDE has to deal with
the MANY differences
> > >> >> >> >> > between
> > >> >> >> >> > windows and linux UI APIs.  Hadoop faces
no such complex
> > >> >> >> >> > challenge
> > >> >> >> >> > and hence
> > >> >> >> >> > can be maintained from a single codeline
IMO.  It is mostly
> > >> >> >> >> > abstracted from
> > >> >> >> >> > the OS APIs via Java and our design choices.
 Where it is not
> > >> >> >> >> > we
> > >> >> >> >> > can
> > >> >> >> >> > continue to add plugable abstractions.
> > >> >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >
> > >
> >

Mime
View raw message