hadoop-common-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Foley <mfo...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk
Date Mon, 04 Mar 2013 23:29:35 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message