Mailing-List: contact mapreduce-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:35:39 -0800
From: Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
To: hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Cc: "mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org>,
        common-dev@hadoop.apache.org, yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk
Message-ID: <20130305003539.GS17164@linspire.com>
References: 
 <CABCYYb8wbiNvNsHdSRK+wHMeKMmhSN+UHctTD=bTtsjay=ab1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <ac1f890c4f3c42ff823ebf39f8b72dd6@BLUPR03MB614.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <CA+z3+9F+JrS-_+x_BfpBppx5SsRTEwY3ZPJm0449h1yrnEsfLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+z3+9EfF5VyXqDPyP71tKY4N25GpKj2HY9Hs1O0KTQ+fkfV3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+z3+9H=i5cWfBBMRN5uy4WaC_rF56sakHcpcYc=gzqwYxf5Vw@mail.gmail.com>
 <FA58897E-8389-492F-800E-59DB30EF95D9@hortonworks.com>
 <CAKtuutGg4kv8aZDz0awb-0N1Z0c7sbOcgFY2MP1MaKYu00TStQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACO5Y4wbys1ayqgQ91697x2oqnO5F1RGvPfCV9=v538ZvD7mmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKtuutG53edR1BBQ8rmMYNbUOW4ewmpi3x4BBa=KxhbPQuqwGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACO5Y4z2H17-u=UtQ-_KN9H3dziKKwvw1KDjgpUTevicAT956Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACO5Y4z2H17-u=UtQ-_KN9H3dziKKwvw1KDjgpUTevicAT956Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

Ok, looks like we are converging on this across a few hundred emails ;)

So, as has been stated elsewhere: test-patch will be improved to fully support
Windows; furthermore -1 from Windows' test-patch won't block Linux commits.
This is ok with me.

Can we have a JIRA ticket for that test-patch work assigned to the real owner,
so it can be tracked? I am +1 in this case.

Cos

On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 04:57PM, Chris Douglas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
> <shv.hadoop@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Commitment is a good thing.
> > I think the two builds that I proposed are a prerequisite for Win support.
> > If we commit windows patch people will start breaking it the next day.
> > Which we wont know without the nightly build and wont be able to fix
> > without the on-demand one.
> 
> As several people have pointed out already, the surface of possible
> conflicts is relatively limited, and- as you did in 2007- the devs on
> Windows will report and fix bugs in that platform as they find them.
> CI is important for detecting and preventing bugs, but this isn't
> software we're launching into orbit.
> 
> > Making two builds is less than 2 days work, imho, given that there is
> > a Windows node available and that mvn targets are in place. Correct me
> > if I missed any complications in the process.
> 
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org> wrote:
> > It seems that with the HW in place, the matter of setting at least nightly
> > build is trivial for anyone with up to date Windows knowledge. I wish I could
> > help. Going without a validation is a recipe for a disaster IMO.
> 
> Fair enough, though that also implies that the window for regressions
> is small, and it leaves little room to doubt that this will receive
> priority. Until it's merged, spurious notifications that the current
> trunk breaks Windows are an awkward introduction to devs' workflow.
> The order of merge/CI is a choice between mild annoyances, really.
> 
> But it might be moot. Giri: you're doing the work on this. When do you
> think it can be complete? -C