Apache Hadoop qbt Report: trunk+JDK8 on Linux/x86

[Apache Jenkins Server]

For more details, see 
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/50/

[Jun 6, 2016 8:28:21 AM] (szetszwo) Revert "Revert "HDFS-10224. Implement 
asynchronous rename for
[Jun 6, 2016 8:28:47 AM] (szetszwo) Revert "Revert "HADOOP-12957. Limit the 
number of outstanding async
[Jun 6, 2016 8:29:38 AM] (szetszwo) Revert "Revert "HDFS-10346. Implement 
asynchronous
[Jun 6, 2016 8:31:23 AM] (szetszwo) Revert "Revert "HADOOP-13168. Support 
Future.get with timeout in ipc
[Jun 6, 2016 8:31:30 AM] (szetszwo) Revert "Revert "HDFS-10390. Implement 
asynchronous setAcl/getAclStatus
[Jun 6, 2016 8:31:34 AM] (szetszwo) Revert "Revert "HDFS-10431 Refactor and 
speedup TestAsyncDFSRename. 
[Jun 6, 2016 8:31:38 AM] (szetszwo) Revert "Revert "HDFS-10430. Reuse 
FileSystem#access in TestAsyncDFS.
[Jun 6, 2016 8:31:43 AM] (szetszwo) Revert "Revert "HADOOP-13226 Support async 
call retry and failover.""
[Jun 6, 2016 9:30:51 PM] (mingma) MAPREDUCE-5044. Have AM trigger jstack on 
task attempts that timeout
[Jun 6, 2016 9:42:36 PM] (stevel) HADOOP-12807 S3AFileSystem should read AWS 
credentials from environment
[Jun 6, 2016 10:52:39 PM] (zhz) HDFS-10458. getFileEncryptionInfo should return 
quickly for
[Jun 7, 2016 4:06:52 AM] (Arun Suresh) YARN-5185. StageAllocaterGreedyRLE: Fix 
NPE in corner case. (Carlo
[Jun 7, 2016 4:18:32 AM] (Arun Suresh) YARN-4525. Fix bug in 
RLESparseResourceAllocation.getRangeOverlapping().
[Jun 7, 2016 5:50:15 AM] (rohithsharmaks) YARN-5118. Tests fails with localizer 
port bind exception. Contributed




-1 overall


The following subsystems voted -1:
docker


Powered by Apache Yetus 0.4.0-SNAPSHOT   http://yetus.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mapreduce-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: mapreduce-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org

Re: Why there are so many revert operations on trunk?

[larry mccay]

inline


On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli 
wrote:

> Folks,
>
> It is truly disappointing how we are escalating situations that can be
> resolved through basic communication.
>
> Things that shouldn’t have happened
> - After a few objections were raised, commits should have simply stopped
> before restarting again but only after consensus
> - Reverts (or revert and move to a feature-branch) shouldn’t have been
> unequivocally done without dropping a note / informing everyone / building
> consensus. And no, not even a release-manager gets this free pass. Not on
> branch-2, not on trunk, not anywhere.
> - Freaking out on -1’s and reverts - we as a community need to be less
> stigmatic about -1s / reverts.
>
>
Agreed.


> Trunk releases:
> This is the other important bit about huge difference of
> expectations between the two sides w.r.t trunk and branching. Till now,
> we’ve never made releases out of trunk. So in-progress features that people
> deemed to not need a feature branch could go into trunk without much
> trouble. Given that we are now making releases off trunk, I can see (a) the
> RM saying "no, don’t put in-progress stuff and (b) the contributors saying
> “no we don’t want the overhead of a branch”. I’ve raised related topics
> (but only focusing on incompatible changes) before -
> http://markmail.org/message/m6x73t6srlchywsn <
> http://markmail.org/message/m6x73t6srlchywsn> - but we never decided
> anything.
>
> We need to at the least force a reset of expectations w.r.t how trunk and
> small / medium / incompatible changes there are treated. We should hold off
> making a release off trunk before this gets fully discussed in the
> community and we all reach a consensus.
>

+1

In essence, by moving commits to a feature branch so that we can release
from trunk is creating a "trunk-branch". :)


> > * Without a user API, there's no way for people to use it, so not much
> > advantage to having it in a release
> >
> > Since the code is separate and probably won't break any existing code, I
> > won't -1 if you want to include this in a release without a user API, but
> > again, I question the utility of including code that can't be used.
>
> Clearly, there are two sides to this argument. One side claims the absence
> of user-facing public / stable APIs, and that for all purposes this is
> dead-code for everyone other than the few early adopters who want to
> experiment with it. The other argument is to not put this code before a
> user API. Again, I’d discuss with fellow community members before making
> what the other side perceives as unacceptable moves.
>
> From 2.8.0 perspective, it shouldn’t have landed there in the first place
> - I have been pushing for a release for a while with help only from a few
> members of the community. But if you say that it has no material impact on
> the user story, having a by-default switched-off feature that *doesn’t*
> destabilize the core release, I’d be willing to let it pass.
>
> +Vinod

Re: Why there are so many revert operations on trunk?

[Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli]

Folks,

It is truly disappointing how we are escalating situations that can be resolved 
through basic communication.

Things that shouldn’t have happened
- After a few objections were raised, commits should have simply stopped before 
restarting again but only after consensus
- Reverts (or revert and move to a feature-branch) shouldn’t have been 
unequivocally done without dropping a note / informing everyone / building 
consensus. And no, not even a release-manager gets this free pass. Not on 
branch-2, not on trunk, not anywhere.
- Freaking out on -1’s and reverts - we as a community need to be less 
stigmatic about -1s / reverts.

Trunk releases:
This is the other important bit about huge difference of expectations 
between the two sides w.r.t trunk and branching. Till now, we’ve never made 
releases out of trunk. So in-progress features that people deemed to not need a 
feature branch could go into trunk without much trouble. Given that we are now 
making releases off trunk, I can see (a) the RM saying "no, don’t put 
in-progress stuff and (b) the contributors saying “no we don’t want the 
overhead of a branch”. I’ve raised related topics (but only focusing on 
incompatible changes) before - http://markmail.org/message/m6x73t6srlchywsn 
 - but we never decided anything.

We need to at the least force a reset of expectations w.r.t how trunk and small 
/ medium / incompatible changes there are treated. We should hold off making a 
release off trunk before this gets fully discussed in the community and we all 
reach a consensus.

> * Without a user API, there's no way for people to use it, so not much
> advantage to having it in a release
> 
> Since the code is separate and probably won't break any existing code, I
> won't -1 if you want to include this in a release without a user API, but
> again, I question the utility of including code that can't be used.

Clearly, there are two sides to this argument. One side claims the absence of 
user-facing public / stable APIs, and that for all purposes this is dead-code 
for everyone other than the few early adopters who want to experiment with it. 
The other argument is to not put this code before a user API. Again, I’d 
discuss with fellow community members before making what the other side 
perceives as unacceptable moves.

From 2.8.0 perspective, it shouldn’t have landed there in the first place - I 
have been pushing for a release for a while with help only from a few members 
of the community. But if you say that it has no material impact on the user 
story, having a by-default switched-off feature that *doesn’t* destabilize the 
core release, I’d be willing to let it pass.

+Vinod

Re: Why there are so many revert operations on trunk?

[larry mccay]

This seems like something that is going to probably happen again if we
continue to cut releases from trunk.
I know that this has been discussed at length in a separate thread but I
think it would be good to recognize that it is the core of the issue here.

Either we:

* need to define what will happen on trunk in such circumstances and
clearly communicate an action before taking it on the dev@ list or
* we need to not introduce this sort of thrashing on trunk by releasing
from it directly

My humble 2 cents...

--larry


On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Andrew Wang 
wrote:

> To clarify what happened here, I moved the commits to a feature branch, not
> just reverting the commits. The intent was to make it easy to merge back in
> later, and also to unblock the 2.8 and 3.0 releases we've been trying very
> hard to wrap up for weeks. This doesn't slow down development since you can
> keep committing to a branch, and I did the git work to make it easy to
> merge back in alter. I'm also happy to review the merge if the concern is
> getting three +1s.
>
> In the comments on HDFS-9924, you can see comments from a month ago raising
> concerns about the API and also that this significant expansion of the HDFS
> API is being done on release branches. There is an explicit -1 on continued
> commits to trunk, and a request to move the commits to a feature branch.
> Similar concerns have been raised by multiple contributors on that JIRA.
> Yet, the commits remained in release branches, and new patches continued to
> be committed to release branches.
>
> There's no need to attribute malicious intent to slow down feature
> development; for some reason I keep seeing this accusation thrown around
> when there are many people chiming in on HDFS-9924 with concerns about the
> feature. Considering how it's expanding the HDFS API, this is also the kind
> of work that should go through a merge vote anyway to get more eyes on it.
>
> We've been converging on the API requirements, but until the user-facing
> API is ready, I don't see the advantage of having this code in a release
> branch. As noted by the contributors on this JIRA, it's new separate code,
> so there's little to no overhead to keeping a feature branch in sync.
>
> So, to sum it up, I moved these commits to a branch because:
>
> * The discussion about the user API is still ongoing, and there is
> currently no user-facing API
> * We are very late in the 2.8 and 3.0 release cycles, trying to do blocker
> burndown
> * This code is separate and thus easy to keep in sync on a branch and merge
> in later
> * Without a user API, there's no way for people to use it, so not much
> advantage to having it in a release
>
> Since the code is separate and probably won't break any existing code, I
> won't -1 if you want to include this in a release without a user API, but
> again, I question the utility of including code that can't be used.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>

Re: Why there are so many revert operations on trunk?

[Andrew Wang]

To clarify what happened here, I moved the commits to a feature branch, not
just reverting the commits. The intent was to make it easy to merge back in
later, and also to unblock the 2.8 and 3.0 releases we've been trying very
hard to wrap up for weeks. This doesn't slow down development since you can
keep committing to a branch, and I did the git work to make it easy to
merge back in alter. I'm also happy to review the merge if the concern is
getting three +1s.

In the comments on HDFS-9924, you can see comments from a month ago raising
concerns about the API and also that this significant expansion of the HDFS
API is being done on release branches. There is an explicit -1 on continued
commits to trunk, and a request to move the commits to a feature branch.
Similar concerns have been raised by multiple contributors on that JIRA.
Yet, the commits remained in release branches, and new patches continued to
be committed to release branches.

There's no need to attribute malicious intent to slow down feature
development; for some reason I keep seeing this accusation thrown around
when there are many people chiming in on HDFS-9924 with concerns about the
feature. Considering how it's expanding the HDFS API, this is also the kind
of work that should go through a merge vote anyway to get more eyes on it.

We've been converging on the API requirements, but until the user-facing
API is ready, I don't see the advantage of having this code in a release
branch. As noted by the contributors on this JIRA, it's new separate code,
so there's little to no overhead to keeping a feature branch in sync.

So, to sum it up, I moved these commits to a branch because:

* The discussion about the user API is still ongoing, and there is
currently no user-facing API
* We are very late in the 2.8 and 3.0 release cycles, trying to do blocker
burndown
* This code is separate and thus easy to keep in sync on a branch and merge
in later
* Without a user API, there's no way for people to use it, so not much
advantage to having it in a release

Since the code is separate and probably won't break any existing code, I
won't -1 if you want to include this in a release without a user API, but
again, I question the utility of including code that can't be used.

Thanks,
Andrew

Re: Why there are so many revert operations on trunk?

[Jitendra Pandey]

Colin raised the -1 demanding a design document. The document was added the 
very next day. There were constructive discussions on the design. There was a 
demand for listenable future or futures with callback, which was accepted to 
accommodate. Rest of the work having been completed, there was no need to 
revert. Andrew’s objection was primarily against releasing in 2.8 without the 
aforementioned change in API, which is reasonable and, IMO, it should be 
possible to make the above improvement within 2.8 timeline. 

On Jun 6, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Chris Douglas  wrote:

> Reading through HDFS-9924, a request for a design doc- and a -1 on
> committing to trunk- was raised in mid-May, but commits to trunk
> continued. Why is that? Shouldn't this have paused while the details
> were discussed? Branching is neutral to the pace of feature
> development, but consensus on the result is required. Working through
> possibilities in a branch- or in multiple branches- seems like a
> reasonable way to determine which approach has support and code to
> back it.
> 
> Reverting code is not "illegal"; the feature will be in/out of any
> release by appealing to bylaws. Our rules exist to facilitate
> consensus, not declare it a fiat accompli.
> 
> An RM only exists by creating an RC. Someone can declare themselves
> Grand Marshall of trunk and stomp around in a fancy hat, but it
> doesn't affect anything. -C
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Junping Du  wrote:
>> Thanks Aaron for pointing it out. I didn't see any consensus on HDFS-9924 so 
>> I think we should bring it here with broader audiences for more discussions.
>> 
>> I saw several very bad practices here:
>> 
>> 1. committer (no need to say who) revert all commits from trunk without 
>> making consensus with all related contributors/committers.
>> 
>> 2. Someone's comments on feature branch are very misleading... If I didn't 
>> remember wrong, feature development doesn't have to go through feature 
>> branch which is just an optional process. This creative process of feature 
>> branch and branch committer - I believe the intention is trying to 
>> accelerate features development but not to slow them down.
>> 
>> 3. Someone (again, no need to say who) seems to claim himself as RM for 
>> trunk. I don't think we need any RM for trunk. Even for RM of 3.0.0-alpha, I 
>> think we need someone else who demonstrates he/she is more responsible, work 
>> hardly and carefully and open communication with all community. Only through 
>> this, the success of Hadoop in age of 3.0 are guranteed.
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> 
>> Junping
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Aaron T. Myers 
>> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 4:46 PM
>> To: Junping Du
>> Cc: Andrew Wang; common-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; 
>> mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Why there are so many revert operations on trunk?
>> 
>> Junping,
>> 
>> All of this is being discussed on HDFS-9924. Suggest you follow the 
>> conversation there.
>> 
>> --
>> Aaron T. Myers
>> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> 
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Junping Du 
>> mailto:j...@hortonworks.com>> wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>> 
>> I just noticed you revert 8 commits on trunk last Friday:
>> 
>> HADOOP-13226
>> 
>> HDFS-10430
>> 
>> HDFS-10431
>> 
>> HDFS-10390
>> 
>> HADOOP-13168
>> 
>> HDFS-10390
>> 
>> HADOOP-13168
>> 
>> HDFS-10346
>> 
>> HADOOP-12957
>> 
>> HDFS-10224
>> 
>>   And I didn't see you have any comments on JIRA or email discussion before 
>> you did this. I don't think we are legally allowed to do this even as 
>> committer/PMC member. Can you explain what's your intention to do this?
>> 
>>   BTW, thanks Nicolas to revert all these "illegal" revert operations.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> 
>> Junping
>> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
> 
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mapreduce-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: mapreduce-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org

Re: Why there are so many revert operations on trunk?

[Chris Douglas]

Reading through HDFS-9924, a request for a design doc- and a -1 on
committing to trunk- was raised in mid-May, but commits to trunk
continued. Why is that? Shouldn't this have paused while the details
were discussed? Branching is neutral to the pace of feature
development, but consensus on the result is required. Working through
possibilities in a branch- or in multiple branches- seems like a
reasonable way to determine which approach has support and code to
back it.

Reverting code is not "illegal"; the feature will be in/out of any
release by appealing to bylaws. Our rules exist to facilitate
consensus, not declare it a fiat accompli.

An RM only exists by creating an RC. Someone can declare themselves
Grand Marshall of trunk and stomp around in a fancy hat, but it
doesn't affect anything. -C


On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Junping Du  wrote:
> Thanks Aaron for pointing it out. I didn't see any consensus on HDFS-9924 so 
> I think we should bring it here with broader audiences for more discussions.
>
> I saw several very bad practices here:
>
> 1. committer (no need to say who) revert all commits from trunk without 
> making consensus with all related contributors/committers.
>
> 2. Someone's comments on feature branch are very misleading... If I didn't 
> remember wrong, feature development doesn't have to go through feature branch 
> which is just an optional process. This creative process of feature branch 
> and branch committer - I believe the intention is trying to accelerate 
> features development but not to slow them down.
>
> 3. Someone (again, no need to say who) seems to claim himself as RM for 
> trunk. I don't think we need any RM for trunk. Even for RM of 3.0.0-alpha, I 
> think we need someone else who demonstrates he/she is more responsible, work 
> hardly and carefully and open communication with all community. Only through 
> this, the success of Hadoop in age of 3.0 are guranteed.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Junping
>
>
> 
> From: Aaron T. Myers 
> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 4:46 PM
> To: Junping Du
> Cc: Andrew Wang; common-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; 
> mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Why there are so many revert operations on trunk?
>
> Junping,
>
> All of this is being discussed on HDFS-9924. Suggest you follow the 
> conversation there.
>
> --
> Aaron T. Myers
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Junping Du 
> mailto:j...@hortonworks.com>> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
>  I just noticed you revert 8 commits on trunk last Friday:
>
> HADOOP-13226
>
> HDFS-10430
>
> HDFS-10431
>
> HDFS-10390
>
> HADOOP-13168
>
> HDFS-10390
>
> HADOOP-13168
>
> HDFS-10346
>
> HADOOP-12957
>
> HDFS-10224
>
>And I didn't see you have any comments on JIRA or email discussion before 
> you did this. I don't think we are legally allowed to do this even as 
> committer/PMC member. Can you explain what's your intention to do this?
>
>BTW, thanks Nicolas to revert all these "illegal" revert operations.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Junping
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mapreduce-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: mapreduce-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org

Re: Why there are so many revert operations on trunk?

[Junping Du]

Thanks Aaron for pointing it out. I didn't see any consensus on HDFS-9924 so I 
think we should bring it here with broader audiences for more discussions.

I saw several very bad practices here:

1. committer (no need to say who) revert all commits from trunk without making 
consensus with all related contributors/committers.

2. Someone's comments on feature branch are very misleading... If I didn't 
remember wrong, feature development doesn't have to go through feature branch 
which is just an optional process. This creative process of feature branch and 
branch committer - I believe the intention is trying to accelerate features 
development but not to slow them down.

3. Someone (again, no need to say who) seems to claim himself as RM for trunk. 
I don't think we need any RM for trunk. Even for RM of 3.0.0-alpha, I think we 
need someone else who demonstrates he/she is more responsible, work hardly and 
carefully and open communication with all community. Only through this, the 
success of Hadoop in age of 3.0 are guranteed.


Thanks,


Junping



From: Aaron T. Myers 
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 4:46 PM
To: Junping Du
Cc: Andrew Wang; common-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; 
mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why there are so many revert operations on trunk?

Junping,

All of this is being discussed on HDFS-9924. Suggest you follow the 
conversation there.

--
Aaron T. Myers
Software Engineer, Cloudera

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Junping Du 
mailto:j...@hortonworks.com>> wrote:
Hi Andrew,

 I just noticed you revert 8 commits on trunk last Friday:

HADOOP-13226

HDFS-10430

HDFS-10431

HDFS-10390

HADOOP-13168

HDFS-10390

HADOOP-13168

HDFS-10346

HADOOP-12957

HDFS-10224

   And I didn't see you have any comments on JIRA or email discussion before 
you did this. I don't think we are legally allowed to do this even as 
committer/PMC member. Can you explain what's your intention to do this?

   BTW, thanks Nicolas to revert all these "illegal" revert operations.



Thanks,


Junping

Re: Why there are so many revert operations on trunk?

[Aaron T. Myers]

Junping,

All of this is being discussed on HDFS-9924. Suggest you follow the
conversation there.

--
Aaron T. Myers
Software Engineer, Cloudera

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Junping Du  wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
>  I just noticed you revert 8 commits on trunk last Friday:
>
> HADOOP-13226
>
> HDFS-10430
>
> HDFS-10431
>
> HDFS-10390
>
> HADOOP-13168
>
> HDFS-10390
>
> HADOOP-13168
>
> HDFS-10346
>
> HADOOP-12957
>
> HDFS-10224
>
>And I didn't see you have any comments on JIRA or email discussion
> before you did this. I don't think we are legally allowed to do this even
> as committer/PMC member. Can you explain what's your intention to do this?
>
>BTW, thanks Nicolas to revert all these "illegal" revert operations.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Junping
>

Apache Hadoop qbt Report: trunk+JDK8 on Linux/x86

[Apache Jenkins Server]

For more details, see 
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/49/

No changes




-1 overall


The following subsystems voted -1:
findbugs unit


The following subsystems voted -1 but
were configured to be filtered/ignored:
cc checkstyle javac javadoc pylint shellcheck shelldocs whitespace


The following subsystems are considered long running:
(runtime bigger than 1h  0m  0s)
unit


Specific tests:

FindBugs :

   module:hadoop-common-project/hadoop-minikdc 
   org.apache.hadoop.minikdc.MiniKdc.stop() calls Thread.sleep() with a 
lock held At MiniKdc.java:lock held At MiniKdc.java:[line 345] 

FindBugs :

   module:hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-api 
   Redundant nullcheck of execTypeRequest, which is known to be non-null in 
org.apache.hadoop.yarn.api.records.ResourceRequest.equals(Object) Redundant 
null check at ResourceRequest.java:is known to be non-null in 
org.apache.hadoop.yarn.api.records.ResourceRequest.equals(Object) Redundant 
null check at ResourceRequest.java:[line 361] 

Failed junit tests :

   hadoop.net.TestDNS 
   hadoop.hdfs.server.namenode.ha.TestEditLogTailer 
   hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.TestClientRMTokens 
   hadoop.yarn.server.resourcemanager.TestAMAuthorization 
   hadoop.yarn.server.TestContainerManagerSecurity 
   hadoop.yarn.server.TestMiniYarnClusterNodeUtilization 
   hadoop.yarn.client.cli.TestLogsCLI 
   hadoop.yarn.client.api.impl.TestAMRMProxy 
   hadoop.yarn.client.api.impl.TestDistributedScheduling 
   hadoop.yarn.client.TestGetGroups 
   hadoop.mapred.TestMiniMRChildTask 
   hadoop.mapred.TestMRCJCFileOutputCommitter 

Timed out junit tests :

   org.apache.hadoop.http.TestHttpServerLifecycle 
   org.apache.hadoop.yarn.client.cli.TestYarnCLI 
   org.apache.hadoop.yarn.client.api.impl.TestAMRMClient 
   org.apache.hadoop.yarn.client.api.impl.TestYarnClient 
   org.apache.hadoop.yarn.client.api.impl.TestNMClient 
  

   cc:

   
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/49/artifact/out/diff-compile-cc-root.txt
  [4.0K]

   javac:

   
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/49/artifact/out/diff-compile-javac-root.txt
  [168K]

   checkstyle:

   
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/49/artifact/out/diff-checkstyle-root.txt
  [16M]

   pylint:

   
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/49/artifact/out/diff-patch-pylint.txt
  [16K]

   shellcheck:

   
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/49/artifact/out/diff-patch-shellcheck.txt
  [20K]

   shelldocs:

   
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/49/artifact/out/diff-patch-shelldocs.txt
  [16K]

   whitespace:

   
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/49/artifact/out/whitespace-eol.txt
  [12M]
   
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/49/artifact/out/whitespace-tabs.txt
  [1.3M]

   findbugs:

   
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/49/artifact/out/branch-findbugs-hadoop-common-project_hadoop-minikdc-warnings.html
  [8.0K]
   
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/49/artifact/out/branch-findbugs-hadoop-yarn-project_hadoop-yarn_hadoop-yarn-api-warnings.html
  [8.0K]

   javadoc:

   
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/49/artifact/out/diff-javadoc-javadoc-root.txt
  [2.3M]

   unit:

   
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/49/artifact/out/patch-unit-hadoop-common-project_hadoop-common.txt
  [116K]
   
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/49/artifact/out/patch-unit-hadoop-hdfs-project_hadoop-hdfs.txt
  [144K]
   
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/49/artifact/out/patch-unit-hadoop-yarn-project_hadoop-yarn_hadoop-yarn-server_hadoop-yarn-server-resourcemanager.txt
  [60K]
   
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/49/artifact/out/patch-unit-hadoop-yarn-project_hadoop-yarn_hadoop-yarn-server_hadoop-yarn-server-tests.txt
  [268K]
   
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/49/artifact/out/patch-unit-hadoop-yarn-project_hadoop-yarn_hadoop-yarn-client.txt
  [908K]
   
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/49/artifact/out/patch-unit-hadoop-mapreduce-project_hadoop-mapreduce-client_hadoop-mapreduce-client-jobclient.txt
  [92K]
   
https://builds.apache.org/job/hadoop-qbt-trunk-java8-linux-x86/49/artifact/out/patch-unit-hadoop-mapreduce-project_hadoop-mapreduce-client_hadoop-mapreduce-client-nativetask.txt
  [124K]

Powered by Apache Yetus 0.4.0-SNAPSHOT   http://yetus.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mapreduce

Why there are so many revert operations on trunk?

[Junping Du]

Hi Andrew,

 I just noticed you revert 8 commits on trunk last Friday:

HADOOP-13226

HDFS-10430

HDFS-10431

HDFS-10390

HADOOP-13168

HDFS-10390

HADOOP-13168

HDFS-10346

HADOOP-12957

HDFS-10224

   And I didn't see you have any comments on JIRA or email discussion before 
you did this. I don't think we are legally allowed to do this even as 
committer/PMC member. Can you explain what's your intention to do this?

   BTW, thanks Nicolas to revert all these "illegal" revert operations.



Thanks,


Junping