Thanks a for those notes Devaraj!
Very useful for the unfortunates who did not got the chance to join the
Le 19 févr. 2013 20:27, "Devaraj Das" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> - Stabilizing 0.96 / CI
> -- not running continuously
> -- Roman: is it a good idea to run IT under Bigtop
> - the HBase unit tests are good..
> - What about HBase as a backend for hive - tests for those
> - Do we think there is value with the integration with the rest
> of the hadoop ecosystem
> -- Jon: What's needed to make this work
> -- Roman: Collective agreement that we want to solve this
> -- Stack: We need to run the IT tests from Enis and Sergey running
> -- Roman: If we all agree that this is something needs to be fixed
> .. then yes we would talk about mechanics. Bigtop doesn't have
> expertise in HBase and hence HBase folks would have to debug failures.
> -- Roman: Bigtop is committed to tests. Less than a dozen tests for
> hbase currently..
> -- We have been running validation around RC time. Find all kinds of
> issues - sometimes trivial (maybe a config issue),
> -- Roman can offer CI for trunk but will work for only hadoop-2 line.
> -- Roman does first line of triage.
> -- No issues to do with other ecosystem artifacts. Bigtop ensures
> the right artifacts are in place.
> -- hadoop-2 is important but not particular about the version of
> hadoop within 2. For example 2.0.2
> -- Gary: Will be good to run security tests
> -- Roman & Devaraj to talk on how this can be done/implemented
> On 0.96 branching
> - Lars:
> -- We will have three branches to maintain.
> - Stack: we need to stabilize quickly
> - Enis: What about 0.95.
> - Stack: Just do the snapshots thing. Every week, give a snapshot
> - Enis: we've done a bunch of stuff in RPC.. If we have to break
> something, we can if it is beta (0.96-beta).
> - Agreement is there generally ... Debate on the name with snapshot
> versus 95.0/96.0
> -- 0.95 experimental .. 0.96 will be stable
> -- If we go with 0.95, releasing will be easier as well..
> -- 0.95 will not be in production..
> -- 0.96 will be off 0.95 branch and not trunk based
> - How do we go about committing issues.. (issue commit rate is low)
> -- 0.94 is stable - 2 new commits and 2 new bugs a day
> -- 0.96 has lots of issues not reviewed
> -- Break up the patch into multiple smaller pieces to make review easier
> -- Branching on a big feature was suggested -
> --- Issues: committer needs to be there
> Sergey: If the rate of change is high on common code (to the
> branches) then merging will be tough
> --- Jon: Refactor should be done in the main branch (since it
> doesn't add any new funtionality)
> --- Release often to reduce #backports overall and issues with that..
> - Review process .. how to drive a review to closure. Effort goes
> waste if the review process is not completed. The same reviewer should
> continue to review the patch ..
> - Hard to enforce any process
> - Enis: there should be a summary of the patch and all that .. so that
> the review process is helped.. Hard to understand the architecture of
> the patch unless documented
> - Jon: It should be easy to make a one-to-one correspondence between
> the description and the patch
> - The commit should have only the jira# as opposed to pages of description
> - Component owners: is this working. Committers need to be forthcoming
> with reviews
> -- Maybe review the modules and add some more if needed.
> -- Good that we have more contributions coming than we have
> reviewers, but unless we keep up, we will plateau
> -- Mail on dev@ list if review doesn't happen
> - Dev co-ordination:
> -- How best can we pull together
> -- Priorities:
> --- Getting 0.96 out is priority
> --- Backports to 0.94 will happen .. until 0.96 is stable
> --- 0.92 release ? Any committer who wants to make a release can do
> so (maybe with some backports, etc.)