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 Mon, 20 Dec 2010 20:42:41 GMT
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