I am sorry, but merging a potentially disruptive change to branch-2 without end-to-end tests seems too disruptive to me.
I do agree with you on the potential inconvenience of having to post different patches for trunk and branch-2, but I would rather have that inconvenience than the risk of merging something that hasn't been thoroughly tested. On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Wangda Tan <wheele...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Karthik, > > Thanks for comments! However, I think only merge to trunk may not work, > this patch involves thousands lines of code changes in scheduler side, only > putting that to trunk could lead to trunk/branch-2 totally incompatible for > resource manager. I think most of the code changes are new to scheduler > instead of modifying existed logic, they're not very tricky to me. And when > 2.8 will be released is not planned yet, at least we have a couple of > months to make sure this feature becomes usable and not cause existing > behavior regressions. > > Sounds good to you? > > Wangda > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Karthik Kambatla <ka...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > +1 on merging to trunk. It would be nice to have some amount of testing > > done before the merge, but I understand how merging to trunk would likely > > speed up the testing efforts. > > > > Let us not merge into branch-2 until after we have done a fair bit of > > testing, and are comfortable including it in a release. While the code > > mostly appears to not mess with existing scheduling logic, I am concerned > > about regressions to existing scheduling behavior. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Karthik Kambatla <ka...@cloudera.com> > > wrote: > > > > > By the way, for the purposes of merge vote, I believe a committer's > vote > > > is binding. So, Wangda and Zhihai's votes should be binding. :) > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Zhihai Xu <z...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > > >> +1 (non-binding) > > >> > > >> thanks > > >> Zhihai Xu > > >> > > >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:10 AM, Xuan Gong <xg...@hortonworks.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > +1 Binding > > >> > > > >> > Thanks > > >> > > > >> > Xuan Gong > > >> > > > >> > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 12:03 AM, Junping Du <j...@hortonworks.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > +1. (Binding). > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > >> > > Junping > > >> > > ________________________________________ > > >> > > From: Wangda Tan <wheele...@gmail.com> > > >> > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 3:19 AM > > >> > > To: yarn-dev@hadoop.apache.org > > >> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Merge YARN-1197 container resize into trunk > > >> > > > > >> > > +1 (non-binding), > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks Jian starting this thread. This can minimize effort of > works > > >> > across branches. > > >> > > > > >> > > To clarify, this feature is end-to-end code completed, we have > API, > > >> > rm/nm implementations patches committed, but we haven't tested it > > >> > end-to-end. Filed YARN-4175 to create an example program to test it > > >> > end-to-end. > > >> > > > > >> > > Regards, > > >> > > Wangda > > >> > > > > >> > >> On Sep 16, 2015, at 6:30 PM, Jian He <j...@hortonworks.com> > wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Hi All, > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Thanks Meng Ding and Wangda Tan for all the hard work ! > > >> > >> > > >> > >> I would like to call a vote to merge YARN-1197 container resize > > into > > >> > trunk. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Key idea: > > >> > >> This feature adds the ability for AM to change container resource > > >> size > > >> > at runtime. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Details: > > >> > >> - This feature is tracked at > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1197 > > >> > >> - It’s currently developed at a separate branch: > > >> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop/commits/YARN-1197 > > >> > >> - A uber patch(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-4157) > > >> > generated from YARN-1197 to run against trunk shows all unit tests > > have > > >> > passed. > > >> > >> - This feature now can work end-to-end. > > >> > >> - All the unresolved jiras under YARN-1197 will be the next > step. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Thanks, > > >> > >> Wangda Tan & Meng Ding & Jian He > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
