Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAha9a1ORub1zAsxmwiaZqeGHM=ntpP0JYZrg_xNe8ibq8HZfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAAha9a1ORub1zAsxmwiaZqeGHM=ntpP0JYZrg_xNe8ibq8HZfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:40:34 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CA+RK=_DrqSucfeLzGWGQND3VY7DXnqTui_YXmV-Q50keaxkwRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Snapshots branch trunk merging
From: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01294920e599ad04d5906395

--089e01294920e599ad04d5906395
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I would be +0 on a merge if HadoopQA is good with a patch to latest trunk,
given the system testing story.

I would be +1 if I had bandwidth to review the patch. :-(


On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com> wrote:

> On the unit testing front, I've personally gotten one error-free unit
> tests runs runs and one with a failure in hbase-examples:
>
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.coprocessor.example.TestBulkDeleteProtocol.testBulkDeleteFamily.
>
> On the system testing side, I've been testing the pre-merge version
> outlined by Aleks [2] and it had been fairly robust on a 5 node
> cluster with fault injection.  I've also done some testing on a 20
> node cluster (no fault injection) and a few runs on a 100 node cluster
> where the snapshoting feature has been robust.
>


-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

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

--089e01294920e599ad04d5906395--