hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 0.94 tests back in shape and some guidelines
Date Thu, 10 Jan 2013 22:20:36 GMT
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Jesse Yates <jesse.k.yates@gmail.com>wrote:

> Something like a -P jenkins? It would also put source control on how we run
> the test/build CI.
>
> Happy do put up a quick patch, if people are interested.
>

Yes, please! A corresponding update to the docbook would be excellent as
well ;)

-n

 On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 4:34 PM, lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I feel that would be overkill. Test suite runs for a long time.
> Personally
> > I hate to run them locally and have my machine taken over for an hour.
> >
> > If is passed HadoopQA in trunk and a few relevant tests in 0.94 were run
> > (if applicable) I think that is good enough.
> >
> > If it doesn't pass the 0.94 run we'll find out soon enough. If the test
> > suite is stable that is :)
> >
> >
> > The gatekeeper are the release tests, not HadoopQA... IMHO.
> >
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >  From: Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> > To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> > Cc: lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com>
> > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 4:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: 0.94 tests back in shape and some guidelines
> >
> > Since we don't have Hadoop QA for 0.94 patches yet, does it make sense
> for
> > either contributor (patch owner) or the committer who plans to integrate
> > the patch to present test suite result before integration ?
> >
> > There is subtle difference between 0.94 and trunk which may lead to
> > unexpected results.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Enis Söztutar <enis.soz@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I think it is not a matter of running the tests N times, but more so on
> > > running different platforms. From our builds, what we see most often is
> > > that the test runs just fine under CentOS 6, but becomes more flaky
> under
> > > CentOS 5 possibly b/c of thread scheduling differences. Moreover, under
> > > windows, the threads are not immediately scheduled to run after start()
> > > which causes further race conditions which does not occur so frequently
> > > under *nix systems.
> > >
> > > For 0.94 QA, theoretically we should not this. However in practice I
> see
> > > that if there is a brave soul to work on it, we will find it useful.
> > >
> > > Enis
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 10:37 PM, lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If we make it too onerous we'll see fewer contributions especially in
> > the
> > > > test area. :)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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