hadoop-yarn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sangjin Lee <sj...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [YARN-2928] rebasing to trunk
Date Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:37:57 GMT
Thanks folks for chiming in. I'll finalize the rebase. We'll back out the
changes made for HDFS-9187 later once that JIRA is closed. We should also
look into the TestRPC change after this to see if we can avoid duplication.

Please refrain from checking out the YARN-2928 branch for a little while
until I force push the changes. I'll let you know when it's done. Thanks!

Sangjin

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Junping Du <jdu@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the work, Sangjin! Please go ahead to complete rebase.
>
> About moving TestRPC from hadoop-common to hadoop-server-common, we were
> adding "testRPCOnCollectorNodeManagerProtocol" by reusing existing code
> in TestRPC which deal with server protocol so have to stay in
> hadoop-server-common now. There is also another option to separate this
> test case (added in YARN-2928 branch only) as a separated test class (like:
> TestServerRPC) with copy some test code from TestRPC, but it is not quite
> reasonable just for merge convenient.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Junping​
> ------------------------------
>
> Thanks Li! Naga's also fine with d35d861. Junping, are you OK with
> completing the rebase as it stands?
>
> Sangjin
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Li Lu <llu@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Sangjin for the work! I’ve tested our temporary fix on HBase UT
> > failures (bd5af9c) and it looks good to me. I’m not an expert in HTrace or
> > HDFS, but so far the fix works on our side. We may need to revert our
> > current fix after HDFS-9187 is officially done, though. For now I’m +1 on
> > the temp fix in YARN-2928 branch.
> >
> > Li Lu
> >
> > On Oct 12, 2015, at 18:02, Sangjin Lee <sjlee@apache.org<mailto:
> > sjlee@apache.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I have completed the rebase of YARN-2928 (this time cherry-picks really) to
> > the trunk as of last Saturday. I resolved 10 merge conflicts most of which
> > were minor. But I do want to call out a few of them, and would like you to
> > review how I resolved those conflicts before I make the rebase official. I
> > have just pushed this new branch ("*YARN-2928-rebase*") so you can take a
> > look at it. I'll swap the branches once we're satisfied.
> >
> > The following are those commits to review. I called out those who might be
> > best to review the merges.
> >
> > [3e3a8fe: Junping]
> > Trunk added a new use (in TestContainerResourceIncreaseRPC
> > <
> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/trunk/hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-common/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/TestContainerResourceIncreaseRPC.java#L99
> > >)
> > of a method (TestRPC.newContainerToken) in TestRPC which we moved from
> > yarn-common to yarn-server-common. I copied that method in
> > TestContainerResourceIncreaseRPC. We could reconsider whether we want to
> > move TestRPC from yarn-common to yarn-server-common. I don't recall the
> > details of the discussion, but was there a strong reason to move TestRPC
> > out of yarn-common? If trunk keeps creating new uses of this class, it
> > might be a problem.
> >
> > [d35d861: Naga]
> > Trunk added a new RM event type (app updated: YARN-4044
> > <
> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop/commit/a9aafad12b1d2f67e55e09a6fa261d61789c9d7e
> > >).
> > I applied the same changes and moved code to
> > AbstractTimelineServicePublisher, TimelineServiceV1Publisher, and
> > TimelineServiceV2Publisher respectively. Naga, could you please confirm if
> > that new event is done right in the merge commit?
> >
> > [bd5af9c]
> > It turns out HDFS-9080 broke the HBase mini-cluster, which in turn broke
> > our HBase-based unit tests. This was caught by HDFS-9187 which has a patch.
> > The patch is not entirely correct (causes NPEs), and I applied a fixed
> > version of that patch to our branch to ensure our tests pass. Let me know
> > if you are OK with that. I don't think we can wait until HDFS-9187 gets
> > resolved.
> >
> > If you could take a look at these commits, and let me know +1/-1, I'll be
> > able to take the next steps. Thanks everyone!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sangjin
> >​
>
>
>

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