hadoop-mapreduce-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Boudnik <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk
Date Tue, 26 Mar 2013 02:14:04 GMT
Yes, you are right of course - the mis-merged commit is the cause. Thanks for
pointing this out!

I think it would be beneficial if we had branch-2 on going build in the
Jenkins. I will go ahead and create one tonight.

Cos

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 05:09PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
> Adding other mailing lists I missed earlier.
> 
> Cos,
> 
> There is progress being made on that ticket. Also it has nothing to do with
> that.
> 
> Please follow the discussion here and why this happened due to an invalid
> commit that was reverted -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-4615?focusedCommentId=13612650&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13612650
> 
> Regards,
> Suresh
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> > It doesn't look like any progress has been done on the ticket below in the
> > last 3 weeks. And now branch-2 can't be compiled because of
> >
> >
> > hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hdfs/TestDFSShell.java:[895,15]
> > WINDOWS is not public in org.apache.hadoop.fs.Path; cannot be accessed from
> > outside package
> >
> > That's exactly why I was -1'ing this...
> >   Cos
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 05:41PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> > > Thanks, gentlemen.  I've opened and taken responsibility for
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9359.  Giri Kesavan has
> > agreed
> > > to help with the parts that require Jenkins admin access.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > --Matt
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <
> > shv.hadoop@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 on the merge.
> > > >
> > > > I am glad we agreed.
> > > > Having Jira to track the CI effort is a good idea.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > --Konstantin
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Matt Foley <mfoley@hortonworks.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > Thanks.  I agree Windows -1's in test-patch should not block commits.
> > > > >
> > > > > --Matt
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <
> > > > shv.hadoop@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Matt Foley <mfoley@hortonworks.com
> > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > Konstantine, you have voted -1, and stated some requirements
> > before
> > > > >> > you'll
> > > > >> > withdraw that -1.  As I plan to do work to fulfill those
> > > > requirements, I
> > > > >> > want to make sure that what I'm proposing will, in fact,
satisfy
> > you.
> > > > >> > That's why I'm asking, if we implement full "test-patch"
> > integration
> > > > for
> > > > >> > Windows, does it seem to you that that would provide adequate
> > support?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yes.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > I have learned not to presume that my interpretation is
correct.
> >  My
> > > > >> > interpretation of item #1 is that test-patch provides pre-commit
> > > > build,
> > > > >> > so
> > > > >> > it would satisfy item #1.  But rather than assuming that
I am
> > > > >> > interpreting
> > > > >> > it correctly, I simply want your agreement that it would,
or if
> > not,
> > > > >> > clarification why it won't.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I agree it will satisfy my item #1.
> > > > >> I did not agree in my previous email, but I changed my mind based
on
> > > > >> the latest discussion. I have to explain why now.
> > > > >> I was proposing nightly build because I did not want pre-commit
> > build
> > > > >> for Windows block commits to Linux. But if people are fine just
> > ignoring
> > > > >> -1s for the Windows part of the build it should be good.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Regarding item #2, it is also my interpretation that test-patch
> > > > provides
> > > > >> > an
> > > > >> > on-demand (perhaps 20-minutes deferred) Jenkins build and
unit
> > test,
> > > > >> > with
> > > > >> > logs available to the developer, so it would satisfy item
#2.  But
> > > > >> > rather
> > > > >> > than assuming that I am interpreting it correctly, I simply
want
> > your
> > > > >> > agreement that it would, or if not, clarification why it
won't.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It will satisfy my item #2 in the following way:
> > > > >> I can duplicate your pre-commit build for Windows and add an
input
> > > > >> parameter, which would let people run the build on their patches
> > > > >> chosen from local machine rather than attaching them to Jiras.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> --Konstantin
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > In agile terms, you are the Owner of these requirements.
 Please
> > give
> > > > me
> > > > >> > owner feedback as to whether my proposed work sounds like
it will
> > > > >> > satisfy
> > > > >> > the requirements.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thank you,
> > > > >> > --Matt
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
> > > > >> > <shv.hadoop@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Didn't I explain in details what I am asking for?
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Thanks,
> > > > >> >> --Konst
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Matt Foley <
> > mfoley@hortonworks.com>
> > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > Hi Konstantin,
> > > > >> >> > I'd like to point out two things:
> > > > >> >> > First, I already committed in this thread (email
of Thu, Feb
> > 28,
> > > > 2013
> > > > >> >> > at
> > > > >> >> > 6:01 PM) to providing CI for Windows builds.  So
please stop
> > acting
> > > > >> >> > like
> > > > >> >> > I'm
> > > > >> >> > resisting this idea or something.
> > > > >> >> > Second, you didn't answer my question, you just
kvetched about
> > the
> > > > >> >> > phrasing.
> > > > >> >> > So I ask again:
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > Will providing full "test-patch" integration (pre-commit
build
> > and
> > > > >> >> > unit
> > > > >> >> > test
> > > > >> >> > triggered by Jira "Patch Available" state) satisfy
your
> > request for
> > > > >> >> > functionality #1 and #2?  Yes or no, please.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > --Matt
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
> > > > >> >> > <shv.hadoop@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Hi Matt,
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Matt Foley
<
> > > > mfoley@hortonworks.com>
> > > > >> >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> > Konstantin,
> > > > >> >> >> > I would like to explore what it would
take to remove this
> > > > >> >> >> > perceived
> > > > >> >> >> > impediment --
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Glad you decided to explore. Thank you.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> > although I reserve the right to argue
that this is not
> > > > >> >> >> > pre-requisite to merging the cross-platform
support patch.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> It's your right indeed. So as mine to question
what the
> > platform
> > > > >> >> >> support means for you, which I believe remained
unclear.
> > > > >> >> >> I do not impede the change as you should have
noticed. My
> > > > >> >> >> requirement
> > > > >> >> >> comes from my perception of the support, which
means to me
> > exactly
> > > > >> >> >> two
> > > > >> >> >> things:
> > > > >> >> >> 1. The ability to recognise the code is broken
for the
> > platform
> > > > >> >> >> 2. The ability to test new patches on the platform
> > > > >> >> >> The latter is problematic, as many noticed
in this thread, for
> > > > those
> > > > >> >> >> whose customary environment does not include
Windows.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> > If we implemented full "test-patch" support
for Windows on
> > > > trunk,
> > > > >> >> >> > would
> > > > >> >> >> > that
> > > > >> >> >> > fulfill both your items #1 and #2?  Please
note that:
> > > > >> >> >> > a) Pushing the "Patch Available" button
in Jira shall cause
> > a
> > > > >> >> >> > pre-commit
> > > > >> >> >> > build to start within, I believe, 20 minutes.
> > > > >> >> >> > b) That build keeps logs for both java
build and unit tests
> > for
> > > > >> >> >> > several
> > > > >> >> >> > days, that are accessible to all viewers.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> In item #1 I mostly asking for the nightly
build, which is
> > simpler
> > > > >> >> >> than "test-patch". The latter would be ideal
from the platform
> > > > >> >> >> support
> > > > >> >> >> viewpoint, but it is for the community to decide
if we want
> > to add
> > > > >> >> >> extra +3 hours to the build.
> > > > >> >> >> Nightly build in my understanding is triggered
by the timer
> > rather
> > > > >> >> >> than by Jira's "submit patch" button.  On Jenkins
build
> > > > >> >> >> configuration
> > > > >> >> >> you can specify it under "Build periodically".
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> > So, does this provide sufficient on-demand
support that we
> > don't
> > > > >> >> >> > have
> > > > >> >> >> > to
> > > > >> >> >> > implement a whole new on-demand VM support
structure of some
> > > > sort
> > > > >> >> >> > for
> > > > >> >> >> > #2
> > > > >> >> >> > (which would be an extraordinary and impractical
demand)?
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> I did not mention VMs. Item #2 means a build,
which runs
> > > > >> >> >> "test-patch"
> > > > >> >> >> target with the file specified by a user (instead
of a jira
> > > > >> >> >> attachment).
> > > > >> >> >> When user clicks "Build Now" link a box is
displayed where the
> > > > user
> > > > >> >> >> can enter the file path containing the patch.
This can be
> > > > specified
> > > > >> >> >> in
> > > > >> >> >> the Build Configuration under "This build is
parameterized" by
> > > > >> >> >> choosing AddParameter / FileParameter. The
build can run on
> > the
> > > > same
> > > > >> >> >> Windows machine as the nightly build.
> > > > >> >> >> Such build will let people test their patches
for Windows on
> > > > Jenkins
> > > > >> >> >> if they don't posses a license for the right
version of
> > Windows.
> > > > >> >> >> I hope this will not turn into extraordinary
or impractical
> > > > effort.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Thanks,
> > > > >> >> >> --Konst
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> >> >> > --Matt
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Konstantin
Shvachko
> > > > >> >> >> > <shv.hadoop@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >> >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> >> -1
> > > > >> >> >> >> We should have a CI infrastructure
in place before we can
> > > > commit
> > > > >> >> >> >> to
> > > > >> >> >> >> supporting Windows platform.
> > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> >> Eric is right Win/Cygwin was supported
since day one.
> > > > >> >> >> >> I had a Windows box under my desk
running nightly builds
> > back
> > > > in
> > > > >> >> >> >> 2006-07.
> > > > >> >> >> >> People were irritated but I was filing
windows bugs until
> > 0.22
> > > > >> >> >> >> release.
> > > > >> >> >> >> Times changing and I am glad to see
wider support for Win
> > > > >> >> >> >> platform.
> > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> >> But in order to make it work you guys
need to put the CI
> > > > process
> > > > >> >> >> >> in
> > > > >> >> >> >> place
> > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> >> 1. windows jenkins build: could be
nightly or PreCommit.
> > > > >> >> >> >> - Nightly would mean that changes
can be committed to trunk
> > > > based
> > > > >> >> >> >> on
> > > > >> >> >> >> linux PreCommit build. And people
will file bugs if the
> > change
> > > > >> >> >> >> broke
> > > > >> >> >> >> Windows nightly build.
> > > > >> >> >> >> - PreCommit-win build will mean automatic
reporting failed
> > > > tests
> > > > >> >> >> >> to
> > > > >> >> >> >> respective jira blocking commits the
same way as it is now
> > with
> > > > >> >> >> >> linux
> > > > >> >> >> >> PreCommit builds.
> > > > >> >> >> >> We should discuss which way is more
efficient for
> > developers.
> > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> >> 2. On-demand-windows Jenkins build.
> > > > >> >> >> >> I see it as a build to which I can
attach my patch and the
> > > > build
> > > > >> >> >> >> will
> > > > >> >> >> >> run my changes on a dedicated windows
box.
> > > > >> >> >> >> That way people can test their changes
without having
> > personal
> > > > >> >> >> >> windows
> > > > >> >> >> >> nodes.
> > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> >> I think this is the minimal set of
requirement for us to be
> > > > able
> > > > >> >> >> >> to
> > > > >> >> >> >> commit to the new platform.
> > > > >> >> >> >> Right now I see only one windows related
build
> > > > >> >> >> >> https://builds.apache.org/view/Hadoop/job/Hadoop-1-win/
> > > > >> >> >> >> Which was failing since Sept 8, 2012
and did not run in the
> > > > last
> > > > >> >> >> >> month.
> > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> >> Thanks,
> > > > >> >> >> >> --Konst
> > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Eric
Baldeschwieler
> > > > >> >> >> >> <eric14@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >> > +1 (non-binding)
> > > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> >> > A few of observations:
> > > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> >> > - Windows has actually been a
supported platform for
> > Hadoop
> > > > >> >> >> >> > since
> > > > >> >> >> >> > 0.1
> > > > >> >> >> >> > .
> > > > >> >> >> >> > Doug championed supporting windows
then and we've
> > continued
> > > > to
> > > > >> >> >> >> > do
> > > > >> >> >> >> > it
> > > > >> >> >> >> > with
> > > > >> >> >> >> > varying vigor over time.  To
my knowledge we've never
> > made a
> > > > >> >> >> >> > decision
> > > > >> >> >> >> > to
> > > > >> >> >> >> > drop windows support.  The change
here is improving our
> > > > support
> > > > >> >> >> >> > and
> > > > >> >> >> >> > dropping
> > > > >> >> >> >> > the requirement of cigwin.  We
had Nutch windows users
> > on the
> > > > >> >> >> >> > list
> > > > >> >> >> >> > in
> > > > >> >> >> >> > 2006
> > > > >> >> >> >> > and we've been supporting windows
FS requirements since
> > > > >> >> >> >> > inception.
> > > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> >> > - A little pragmatism will go
a long way.  As a community
> > > > we've
> > > > >> >> >> >> > got
> > > > >> >> >> >> > to
> > > > >> >> >> >> > stay committed to keeping hadoop
simple (so it does work
> > on
> > > > >> >> >> >> > many
> > > > >> >> >> >> > platforms)
> > > > >> >> >> >> > and extending it to take advantage
of key emerging
> > > > OS/hardware
> > > > >> >> >> >> > features,
> > > > >> >> >> >> > such as containers, new FSs,
virtualization, flash ...
> >  We
> > > > >> >> >> >> > should
> > > > >> >> >> >> > all
> > > > >> >> >> >> > plan
> > > > >> >> >> >> > to let new features & optimizations
emerge that don't
> > work
> > > > >> >> >> >> > everywhere, if
> > > > >> >> >> >> > they are compelling and central
to hadoop's mission of
> > being
> > > > >> >> >> >> > THE
> > > > >> >> >> >> > best
> > > > >> >> >> >> > fabric
> > > > >> >> >> >> > for storing and processing big
data.
> > > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> >> > - A UI project like KDE has to
deal with the MANY
> > differences
> > > > >> >> >> >> > between
> > > > >> >> >> >> > windows and linux UI APIs.  Hadoop
faces no such complex
> > > > >> >> >> >> > challenge
> > > > >> >> >> >> > and hence
> > > > >> >> >> >> > can be maintained from a single
codeline IMO.  It is
> > mostly
> > > > >> >> >> >> > abstracted from
> > > > >> >> >> >> > the OS APIs via Java and our
design choices.  Where it
> > is not
> > > > >> >> >> >> > we
> > > > >> >> >> >> > can
> > > > >> >> >> >> > continue to add plugable abstractions.
> > > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://hortonworks.com/download/

Mime
View raw message