Thanks Jacob. I am wasted already but I can do it on Sun, I think, unless it is done earlier. -- Take care, Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 19:41, Jakob Homan <jgho...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok. I'll get a patch out for 1511 tomorrow, unless someone wants to > whip one up tonight. > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Nigel Daley <nda...@mac.com> wrote: >> I agree with Cos on fixing HDFS-1511 first. Once that is done I'll enable >> hdfs patch testing. >> >> Cheers, >> Nige >> >> Sent from my iPhone4 >> >> On Dec 17, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> One more issue needs to be addressed before test-patch is turned on HDFS is >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-1511 >>> -- >>> Take care, >>> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 16:17, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> Considering that because of these 4 faulty cases every patch will be >>>> -1'ed a patch author will still have to look at it and make a comment >>>> why this particular -1 isn't valid. Lesser work, perhaps, but messier >>>> IMO. I'm not blocking it - I just feel like there's a better way. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Take care, >>>> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 15:55, Jakob Homan <jgho...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> If HDFS is added to the test-patch queue right now we get >>>>>> nothing but dozens of -1'ed patches. >>>>> There aren't dozens of patches being submitted currently. The -1 >>>>> isn't the important thing, it's the grunt work of actually running >>>>> (and waiting) for the tests, test-patch, etc. that Hudson does so that >>>>> the developer doesn't have to. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Dhruba Borthakur <dhr...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> +1, thanks for doing this. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Jakob Homan <jgho...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> So, with test-patch updated to show the failing tests, saving the >>>>>>> developers the need to go and verify that the failed tests are all >>>>>>> known, how do people feel about turning on test-patch again for HDFS >>>>>>> and mapred? I think it'll help prevent any more tests from entering >>>>>>> the "yeah, we know" category. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> jg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Jakob Homan <jho...@yahoo-inc.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> True, each patch would get a -1 and the failing tests would need to be >>>>>>>> verified as those known bad (BTW, it would be great if Hudson could >>>>>>>> list >>>>>>>> which tests failed in the message it posts to JIRA). But that's still >>>>>>> quite >>>>>>>> a bit less error-prone work than if the developer runs the tests and >>>>>>>> test-patch themselves. Also, with 22 being cut, there are a lot of >>>>>>> patches >>>>>>>> up in the air and several developers are juggling multiple patches. >>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>> more automation we can have, even if it's not perfect, will decrease >>>>>>> errors >>>>>>>> we may make. >>>>>>>> -jg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nigel Daley wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 17, 2010, at 3:11 PM, Jakob Homan wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It's also ready to run on MapReduce and HDFS but we won't turn it on >>>>>>>>>>> until these projects build and test cleanly. Looks like both these >>>>>>> projects >>>>>>>>>>> currently have test failures. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Assuming the projects are compiling and building, is there a reason >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> not turn it on despite the test failures? Hudson is invaluable to >>>>>>> developers >>>>>>>>>> who then don't have to run the tests and test-patch themselves. We >>>>>>> didn't >>>>>>>>>> turn Hudson off when it was working previously and there were known >>>>>>>>>> failures. I think one of the reasons we have more failing tests now >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> higher cost of doing Hudson's work (not a great excuse I know). This >>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> particularly true now because several of the failing tests involve >>>>>>> tests >>>>>>>>>> timing out, making the whole testing regime even longer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Every single patch would get a -1 and need investigation. Currently, >>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> would be about 83 investigations between MR and HDFS issues that are >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> patch available state. Shouldn't we focus on getting these tests >>>>>>>>> fixed >>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>> removed/? Also, I need to get MAPREDUCE-2172 fixed (applies to HDFS >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> well) before I turn this on. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Nige >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Connect to me at http://www.facebook.com/dhruba >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >
