hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Boudnik <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Patch testing
Date Sat, 18 Dec 2010 04:31:33 GMT
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