hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nigel Daley <nda...@mac.com>
Subject Re: Patch testing
Date Tue, 21 Dec 2010 21:33:37 GMT
Ok, HDFS is now enabled.  You'll see a stream of updates shortly on the ~30 Patch Available
HDFS issues.

Nige

On Dec 20, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:

> I committed HDFS-1511 this morning.  We should be good to go.  I can
> haz snooty robot butler?
> 
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org> wrote:
>> Thanks Jacob. I am wasted already but I can do it on Sun, I think,
>> unless it is done earlier.
>> --
>>   Take care,
>> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 19:41, Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ok.  I'll get a patch out for 1511 tomorrow, unless someone wants to
>>> whip one up tonight.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Nigel Daley <ndaley@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> I agree with Cos on fixing HDFS-1511 first. Once that is done I'll enable
hdfs patch testing.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Nige
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone4
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 17, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> One more issue needs to be addressed before test-patch is turned on HDFS
is
>>>>>  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-1511
>>>>> --
>>>>>   Take care,
>>>>> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 16:17, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>>> Considering that because of these 4 faulty cases every patch will
be
>>>>>> -1'ed a patch author will still have to look at it and make a comment
>>>>>> why this particular -1 isn't valid. Lesser work, perhaps, but messier
>>>>>> IMO. I'm not blocking it - I just feel like there's a better way.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>   Take care,
>>>>>> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 15:55, Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>> If HDFS is added to the test-patch queue right now we get
>>>>>>>> nothing but dozens of -1'ed patches.
>>>>>>> There aren't dozens of patches being submitted currently.  The
-1
>>>>>>> isn't the important thing, it's the grunt work of actually running
>>>>>>> (and waiting) for the tests, test-patch, etc. that Hudson does
so that
>>>>>>> the developer doesn't have to.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Dhruba Borthakur <dhruba@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>> +1, thanks for doing this.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> So, with test-patch updated to show the failing tests,
saving the
>>>>>>>>> developers the need to go and verify that the failed
tests are all
>>>>>>>>> known, how do people feel about turning on test-patch
again for HDFS
>>>>>>>>> and mapred?  I think it'll help prevent any more tests
from entering
>>>>>>>>> the "yeah, we know" category.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> jg
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Jakob Homan <jhoman@yahoo-inc.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> True, each patch would get a -1 and the failing tests
would need to be
>>>>>>>>>> verified as those known bad (BTW, it would be great
if Hudson could list
>>>>>>>>>> which tests failed in the message it posts to JIRA).
 But that's still
>>>>>>>>> quite
>>>>>>>>>> a bit less error-prone work than if the developer
runs the tests and
>>>>>>>>>> test-patch themselves.  Also, with 22 being cut,
there are a lot of
>>>>>>>>> patches
>>>>>>>>>> up in the air and several developers are juggling
multiple patches.  The
>>>>>>>>>> more automation we can have, even if it's not perfect,
will decrease
>>>>>>>>> errors
>>>>>>>>>> we may make.
>>>>>>>>>> -jg
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Nigel Daley wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 17, 2010, at 3:11 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's also ready to run on MapReduce and
HDFS but we won't turn it on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> until these projects build and test cleanly.
 Looks like both these
>>>>>>>>> projects
>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently have test failures.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Assuming the projects are compiling and building,
is there a reason to
>>>>>>>>>>>> not turn it on despite the test failures?
Hudson is invaluable to
>>>>>>>>> developers
>>>>>>>>>>>> who then don't have to run the tests and
test-patch themselves.  We
>>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> turn Hudson off when it was working previously
and there were known
>>>>>>>>>>>> failures.  I think one of the reasons we
have more failing tests now is
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> higher cost of doing Hudson's work (not a
great excuse I know).  This
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> particularly true now because several of
the failing tests involve
>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>> timing out, making the whole testing regime
even longer.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Every single patch would get a -1 and need investigation.
 Currently,
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> would be about 83 investigations between MR and
HDFS issues that are in
>>>>>>>>>>> patch available state.  Shouldn't we focus on
getting these tests fixed
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> removed/?  Also, I need to get MAPREDUCE-2172
fixed (applies to HDFS as
>>>>>>>>>>> well) before I turn this on.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> Nige
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Connect to me at http://www.facebook.com/dhruba
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message