Ok, HDFS is now enabled. You'll see a stream of updates shortly on the ~30 Patch Available HDFS issues.
Nige On Dec 20, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Jakob Homan wrote: > I committed HDFS-1511 this morning. We should be good to go. I can > haz snooty robot butler? > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: >> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>
