Re: Review Request 40735: SQOOP-2715: Sqoop2: The test case ShowJobInOrderTest always failed

2015-12-05 Thread Jarek Cecho
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/40735/#review109084 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Jarek Cecho On Dec. 3, 2015, 5:02 a.m.,

Re: Review Request 40735: SQOOP-2715: Sqoop2: The test case ShowJobInOrderTest always failed

2015-12-02 Thread Colin Ma
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/40735/ --- (Updated Dec. 3, 2015, 5:02 a.m.) Review request for Sqoop. Repository:

Re: Review Request 40735: SQOOP-2715: Sqoop2: The test case ShowJobInOrderTest always failed

2015-12-02 Thread Colin Ma
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/40735/ --- (Updated Dec. 3, 2015, 1:35 a.m.) Review request for Sqoop. Repository:

Re: Review Request 40735: SQOOP-2715: Sqoop2: The test case ShowJobInOrderTest always failed

2015-12-02 Thread Colin Ma
> On Nov. 30, 2015, 5:07 p.m., Jarek Cecho wrote: > > It seems that we've added the test ShowJobInOrderTest back in SQOOP-2398, > > but sadly the description of the JIRA is very sparse. I'm not clear why we > > actually added it as we don't have any guarantees in terms of ordering on > > the

Re: Review Request 40735: SQOOP-2715: Sqoop2: The test case ShowJobInOrderTest always failed

2015-12-01 Thread Jarek Cecho
> On Nov. 30, 2015, 5:07 p.m., Jarek Cecho wrote: > > It seems that we've added the test ShowJobInOrderTest back in SQOOP-2398, > > but sadly the description of the JIRA is very sparse. I'm not clear why we > > actually added it as we don't have any guarantees in terms of ordering on > > the

Re: Review Request 40735: SQOOP-2715: Sqoop2: The test case ShowJobInOrderTest always failed

2015-11-30 Thread Colin Ma
> On Nov. 30, 2015, 5:07 p.m., Jarek Cecho wrote: > > It seems that we've added the test ShowJobInOrderTest back in SQOOP-2398, > > but sadly the description of the JIRA is very sparse. I'm not clear why we > > actually added it as we don't have any guarantees in terms of ordering on > > the