On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Nigel Daley <nda...@mac.com> wrote: > Todd, would love to get > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-2121 fixed first since > this is failing every night on trunk. >
What if we disable that test, move that issue to 0.22 blocker, and then enable the test-patch? I'll also look into that one today, but if it's something that will take a while to fix, I don't think we should hold off the useful testing for all the other patches. -Todd On Jan 5, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > > > 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 > > -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
