hadoop-mapreduce-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk
Date Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:36:03 GMT
Noticed this too. Simply a 'public' modifier is missing, but it's unclear
how this could not have been caught prior to check-in.


On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:17 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.
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message