hadoop-common-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Colin McCabe <cmcc...@alumni.cmu.edu>
Subject Re: submitting a hadoop patch doesn't trigger jenkins test run
Date Wed, 26 Nov 2014 06:26:36 GMT
+1 for increasing the test timeout for tests spanning multiple sub-projects.

I can see the value in what Steve L. suggested... if you make a major
change that touches a particular subproject, you should try to get the
approval of a committer who knows that subproject.  But I don't think that
forcing artificial patch splits is the way to do this...  There are also
some patches that are completely mechanical and don't really require the
involvement of YARN / HDFS committer, even if they change that project.
For example, fixing a misspelling in the name of a hadoop-common API.

Colin

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Yongjun Zhang <yzhang@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Thanks all for the feedback. To summarize (and I have a suggestion at the
> end of this email), there are two scenarios:
>
>    1. A change that span multiple *bigger* projects. r.g. hadoop, hbase.
>    2. A change that span multiple *sub* projects* within hadoop, e.g.,
>    common, hdfs, yarn
>
> For 1, it's required for the change to be backward compatible, thus
> splitting change for multiple *bigger* projects is a must.
>
> For 2, there are two sub types,
>
>    - 2.1 those changes that can be made within hadoop sub-projects, and
>    there is no external impact
>    - 2.2 those changes that have external impact, that is, the changes
>    involve adding new APIs and marking old API deprecated, and
> corresponding
>    changes in other *bigger* projects will have to be made independently.
> *But
>    the changes within hadoop subjects can still be done altogether.*
>
> I think (Please correct me if I'm wrong):
>
>    - What Colin referred to is 2.1 and changes within hadoop sub-subjects
>    for 2.2;
>    - Steve's "not for changes across hadoop-common and hdfs, or
>    hadoop-common and yarn" means 2.1, Steve's  "changes that only
>    span hdfs-and-yarn would be fairly doubtful too." implies his doubt of
>    existence of 2.1.
>
> For changes of 2.1 (if any) and *hadoop* changes of 2.2, we do have an
> option of making the change across all hadoop sub-projects altogether, to
> save the multiple steps Colin referred to.
>
> If this option is feasible, should we consider increasing the jenkins
> timeout for this kind of changes (I mean making the timeout adjustable, if
> it's for single sub-project, use the old timeout; otherwise, increase
> accordingly)  so that we have at least this option when needed?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --Yongjun
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:28 AM, Steve Loughran <stevel@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 25 November 2014 at 00:58, Bernd Eckenfels <ecki@zusammenkunft.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Am Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:16:00 -0800
> > > schrieb Colin McCabe <cmccabe@alumni.cmu.edu>:
> > >
> > > > Conceptually, I think it's important to support patches that modify
> > > > multiple sub-projects.  Otherwise refactoring things in common
> > > > becomes a multi-step process.
> > >
> > > This might be rather philosophical (and I dont want to argue the need
> > > to have the patch infrastructure work for the multi-project case),
> > > howevere if a multi-project change cannot be applied in multiple steps
> > > it is probably also not safe at runtime (unless the multiple projects
> > > belong to a single instance/artifact). And then beeing forced to
> > > commit/compile/test in multiple steps actually increases the
> > > dependencies topology.
> > >
> >
> > +1 for changes that span, say hadoop and hbase. but not for changes
> across
> > hadoop-common and hdfs, or hadoop-common and yarn. changes that only span
> > hdfs-and-yarn would be fairly doubtful too.
> >
> > there is a dependency graph in hadoop's own jars —and cross module (not
> > cross project) changes do need to happen.
> >
> > --
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity
> to
> > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
> > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
> > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that
> > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
> > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> > received this communication in error, please contact the sender
> immediately
> > and delete it from your system. Thank You.
> >
>

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