hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jakob Homan <jgho...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Patch testing
Date Sat, 18 Dec 2010 03:41:40 GMT
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