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 Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:55:35 GMT
> 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