Here's a daily build for hadoop-2 branch
https://builds.apache.org/job/Hadoop-branch2
It just builds the full Hadoop project without running any tests (for now).
Can be easily extended to do test runs/artifact deployment, if needed.
Cos
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 07:14PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote
Yes, you are right of course - the mis-merged commit is the cause. Thanks for
pointing this out!
I think it would be beneficial if we had branch-2 on going build in the
Jenkins. I will go ahead and create one tonight.
Cos
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 05:09PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
> Adding other mai
Adding other mailing lists I missed earlier.
Cos,
There is progress being made on that ticket. Also it has nothing to do with
that.
Please follow the discussion here and why this happened due to an invalid
commit that was reverted -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-4615?focusedComment
Sorry, that was my error selecting the wrong reply option.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
wrote:
> Andrew, this used to be on all -dev lists. Let's keep it that way.
>
> To the point.
> Does this mean that people are silently porting windows changes to
> branch-2?
> New fe
Andrew, this used to be on all -dev lists. Let's keep it that way.
To the point.
Does this mean that people are silently porting windows changes to branch-2?
New features on a branch should be voted first, no?
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> Notice
It doesn't look like any progress has been done on the ticket below in the
last 3 weeks. And now branch-2 can't be compiled because of
hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hdfs/TestDFSShell.java:[895,15]
WINDOWS is not public in org.apache.hadoop.fs.Path; cannot be acce
Thank you all for voting and participating in the discussions.
With 11 +1s from committers (more than the required 3 +1s from
active committers per the Hadoop bylaws), 1 +0, 8 +1s from other
contributors, and no -1s the merge vote passes.
I have committed the consolidated patch from branch-trunk-
On 2 March 2013 03:33, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>
> Windows is so different from _any_ Unix or pseudo-Unix flavors, including
> Windows with Cygwin - that even multi-platform Java has hard hard time
> dealing with it. This is enough, IMO, to warrant a separate checkpoint.
>
>
Cygwin is the worst
Added to the Jira to modify http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToContribute to
document this decision.
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Harsh J wrote:
> Thanks Suresh. Regarding where; we can state it on
> http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToContribute in the test-patch
> section perhaps.
>
> +1 on
Thanks Suresh. Regarding where; we can state it on
http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToContribute in the test-patch
section perhaps.
+1 on the merge.
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Harsh J wrote:
>
>> Have we agreed (and stated it somewh
Thanks, gentlemen. I've opened and taken responsibility for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9359. Giri Kesavan has agreed
to help with the parts that require Jenkins admin access.
Thanks,
--Matt
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
> +1 on the merge.
>
> I
+1 on the merge.
I am glad we agreed.
Having Jira to track the CI effort is a good idea.
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Thanks. I agree Windows -1's in test-patch should not block commits.
>
> --Matt
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Konstantin S
Ok, looks like we are converging on this across a few hundred emails ;)
So, as has been stated elsewhere: test-patch will be improved to fully support
Windows; furthermore -1 from Windows' test-patch won't block Linux commits.
This is ok with me.
Can we have a JIRA ticket for that test-patch work
Thanks. I agree Windows -1's in test-patch should not block commits.
--Matt
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Matt Foley
> wrote:
> > Konstantine, you have voted -1, and stated some requirements before
> you'll
> > withdraw that -1.
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Konstantine, you have voted -1, and stated some requirements before you'll
> withdraw that -1. As I plan to do work to fulfill those requirements, I
> want to make sure that what I'm proposing will, in fact, satisfy you.
> That's why I'm asking
Konstantine, you have voted -1, and stated some requirements before you'll
withdraw that -1. As I plan to do work to fulfill those requirements, I
want to make sure that what I'm proposing will, in fact, satisfy you.
That's why I'm asking, if we implement full "test-patch" integration for
Windows
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Harsh J wrote:
> Have we agreed (and stated it somewhere proper) that a -1 obtained for
> a Windows CI build for a test-patch will not block the ongoing work
> (unless it is Windows specific) and patches may still be committed to
> trunk despite that?
>
This threa
Have we agreed (and stated it somewhere proper) that a -1 obtained for
a Windows CI build for a test-patch will not block the ongoing work
(unless it is Windows specific) and patches may still be committed to
trunk despite that?
I'm +1 if someone can assert and add the above into the formal
guidel
+1 (non-binding),
Windows support is attractive for lots users.
>From point a view from Hadoop developer, Matt said that CI supports
cross platform testing, and it's quite reasonable condition to merge.
Thanks,
Tsuyoshi
Didn't I explain in details what I am asking for?
Thanks,
--Konst
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Hi Konstantin,
> I'd like to point out two things:
> First, I already committed in this thread (email of Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at
> 6:01 PM) to providing CI for Windows builds. So
Hi Konstantin,
I'd like to point out two things:
First, I already committed in this thread (email of Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at
6:01 PM) to providing CI for Windows builds. So please stop acting like
I'm resisting this idea or something.
Second, you didn't answer my question, you just kvetched about the
Hi Matt,
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Konstantin,
> I would like to explore what it would take to remove this perceived
> impediment --
Glad you decided to explore. Thank you.
> although I reserve the right to argue that this is not
> pre-requisite to merging the cross-p
Konstantin,
I would like to explore what it would take to remove this perceived
impediment -- although I reserve the right to argue that this is not
pre-requisite to merging the cross-platform support patch.
If we implemented full "test-patch" support for Windows on trunk, would
that fulfill both
Suresh, I appreciate all the troubles you're going through wrt syncing up the
huge patch for a long time - I really do.
I am not asking to have full test-patch process in place. But I think it is a
real good idea to have a way to run the full test suite once in a while - or
as Konstantin proposing
Sanjay,
This is really confusing now.
Does Hadoop intend to support Windows by committing this patch?
If not, when the declaration of the "official" support comes in and
what does it mean?
Committing a 500K patch just to make things "not worth" doesn't make
sense to me.
If the support for this is
On Mar 1, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
> Commitment is a good thing.
> I think the two builds that I proposed are a prerequisite for Win support.
> If we commit windows patch people will start breaking it the next day.
> Which we wont know without the nightly build and wont be abl
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
wrote:
> Commitment is a good thing.
> I think the two builds that I proposed are a prerequisite for Win support.
> If we commit windows patch people will start breaking it the next day.
> Which we wont know without the nightly build and wont be
It seems that with the HW in place, the matter of setting at least nightly
build is trivial for anyone with up to date Windows knowledge. I wish I could
help. Going without a validation is a recipe for a disaster IMO.
-1 until some reasonable solution is implemented.
Cos
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at
Commitment is a good thing.
I think the two builds that I proposed are a prerequisite for Win support.
If we commit windows patch people will start breaking it the next day.
Which we wont know without the nightly build and wont be able to fix
without the on-demand one.
Making two builds is less th
Konstantin-
There's no debate on the necessity of CI and related infrastructure to
support the platform well. Suresh outlined the support to effect this
here: http://s.apache.org/s1
Is the commitment to establish this infrastructure after the merge
sufficient? -C
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:18 PM,
-1
We should have a CI infrastructure in place before we can commit to
supporting Windows platform.
Eric is right Win/Cygwin was supported since day one.
I had a Windows box under my desk running nightly builds back in 2006-07.
People were irritated but I was filing windows bugs until 0.22 release
Rao G [mailto:mahesw...@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:20 PM
To: hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org; common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Cc: yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks a lot for the work done by S
[sur...@hortonworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:25 AM
To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Cc: yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org;
mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk
I had posted heads up about merging branch-trunk-win to trunk on Feb 8th.
t; don't need to require passing on Windows a mandate at the moment. We can
>>> simply mark it unavailable to Windows and port it later if the feature is
>>> important.
>>>
>>> -Chuan
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Ch
is
>> important.
>>
>> -Chuan
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Chris Nauroth [mailto:cnaur...@hortonworks.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:51 AM
>> To: hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org
>> Cc: mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; yarn-...
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 03:08PM, sanjay Radia wrote:
> +1
> Java has done the bulk of the work in making Hadoop multi-platform.
> Windows specific code is a tiny percentage of the code.
> Jeninks support for windows is going help us keep the platform portable going
> forward.
> I expect that the v
+1 for the merge.
As someone who has been testing the code for many months now, both on
singlenode and multinode clusters, I am very confident about the stability
and the quality of the code. I have run several regression tests to verify
distributed cache, streaming, compression, capacity schedule
+1
Java has done the bulk of the work in making Hadoop multi-platform.
Windows specific code is a tiny percentage of the code.
Jeninks support for windows is going help us keep the platform portable going
forward.
I expect that the vast majority of new commits have no problems. I propose
that we
e.org
Subject: Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk
> Is there a jira for resolving the outstanding TODOs in the code base
> (similar to HDFS-2148)? Looks like this merge doesn't introduce many
> which is great (just did a quick diff and grep).
I found 2 remaining TODOs introd
ld server or another
> >> contributor's environment.
> >> 2.) This community has done an excellent job of incorporating
> >>well-placed
> >> log messages to make it easy to post mortem troubleshoot most failures.
> >> The logs are very useful, and it is extre
.
>> 3.) Hadoop is written primarily in Java, a cross-platform language that
>> provides its own platform in the form of the JVM to insulate most of the
>> code from the specifics of the OS layer.
>> 4.) CoPDoC - The right priorities, and well stated.
>>
>>
>&g
munities.
Thanks,
Kanna
-Original Message-
From: Raja Aluri [mailto:r...@cmbasics.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:17 AM
To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Cc: yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org;
mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trun
+1 non-binding
Nice to see that this work is going to trunk.
Raja Aluri
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
> I had posted heads up about merging branch-trunk-win to trunk on Feb 8th. I
> am happy to announce that we are ready for the merge.
>
> Here is a brief recap on the
l Message-
> From: Ivan Mitic [mailto:iva...@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 6:32 PM
> To: mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Cc: yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to
mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org; common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Cc: yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk
+1 (non-binding)
I am really glad to see this happening! As people already mentioned, this has
been a great engineer
doop.apache.org
Cc: yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org;
mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
> With that we need to decide how our precommit process looks.
> My inclinat
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
> With that we need to decide how our precommit process looks.
> My inclination is to wait for +1 from precommit builds on
> both the platforms to ensure no issues are introduced.
> Thoughts?
>
> 2. Feature development impact
> Some questions
Thanks for raising good questions.
Currently the merge patch passes all the tests on Linux, hence
the proposal for merging the patch to trunk. But as Bobby, Harsh
and Eli pointed out, before declaring support for Windows, we need the
discussion on the following:
1. Precommit and development proce
+1 non-binding.
I have extensively tested this on both Windows and Linux over the last few
months.
Thanks,
-Arpit
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Eli Collins wrote:
> Bobby raises some good questions. A related one, since most current
> developers won't add Windows support for new features
Bobby raises some good questions. A related one, since most current
developers won't add Windows support for new features that are
platform specific is it assumed that Windows development will either
lag or will people actively work on keeping Windows up with the
latest? And vice versa in case Wi
Similar personal concern as Robert: Does this bring about a
development process change? Do new features all need to work on
Windows as well to go into trunk (i.e. immediately or eventually,
either way requires a new policy for all of us devs)? Not that anyone
would be avoiding doing that, I just as
After this is merged in is Windows still going to be a second class
citizen but happens to work for more than just development or is it a
fully supported platform where if something breaks it can block a release?
How do we as a community intend to keep Windows support from breaking?
We don't have
@hortonworks.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:56 PM
> To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Cc: yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org;
> mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk
>
> I had posted heads up about mer
-Original Message-
From: Suresh Srinivas [mailto:sur...@hortonworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:56 PM
To: common-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Cc: yarn-...@hadoop.apache.org; hdfs-...@hadoop.apache.org;
mapreduce-...@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk
I had
54 matches
Mail list logo
