Hi Nigel, MAPREDUCE-2172 has been fixed for a while. Are there any other particular JIRAs you think need to be fixed before the MR test-patch queue gets enabled? I have a lot of outstanding patches and doing all the test-patch turnaround manually on 3 different boxes is a real headache.
Thanks -Todd On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Nigel Daley <nda...@mac.com> wrote: > 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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
