Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
Hadoop, mail # dev - RE: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk


+
Bikas Saha 2013-02-27, 00:30
+
Chris Nauroth 2013-02-27, 06:05
+
Raja Aluri 2013-02-28, 19:17
+
Eric Baldeschwieler 2013-03-01, 04:47
+
Chuan Liu 2013-02-28, 20:21
+
Tsuyoshi OZAWA 2013-03-04, 02:09
+
Harsh J 2013-03-04, 04:50
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-03-04, 18:09
+
Harsh J 2013-03-05, 01:42
+
Matt Foley 2013-03-05, 01:49
+
Steve Loughran 2013-03-06, 13:54
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-03-05, 00:35
+
Matt Foley 2013-03-04, 20:22
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2013-03-04, 22:30
+
Matt Foley 2013-03-04, 23:29
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2013-03-05, 01:00
+
Matt Foley 2013-03-05, 01:41
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-03-25, 20:17
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-03-26, 00:09
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-03-26, 02:14
+
Konstantin Boudnik 2013-03-26, 05:49
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2013-03-25, 21:25
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk
Andrew Purtell 2013-03-25, 21:53
Sorry, that was my error selecting the wrong reply option.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>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 features on a branch should be voted first, no?
>
> Thanks,
> --Konstantin
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Noticed this too. Simply a 'public' modifier is missing, but it's unclear
> > how this could not have been caught prior to check-in.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> 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 accessed
> from
> >> outside package
> >>
> >> That's exactly why I was -1'ing this...
> >>   Cos
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 05:41PM, Matt Foley wrote:
> >> > 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 <
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > +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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> 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 Shvachko <
> >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Matt Foley <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >
> >> > > >> 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, if we implement full "test-patch"
> >> integration
> >> > > for
> >> > > >> > Windows, does it seem to you that that would provide adequate
> >> support?
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Yes.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > I have learned not to presume that my interpretation is
> correct.
> >>  My
> >> > > >> > interpretation of item #1 is that test-patch provides
> pre-commit
> >> > > build,
> >> > > >> > so
> >> > > >> > it would satisfy item #1.  But rather than assuming that I am
> >> > > >> > interpreting
> >> > > >> > it correctly, I simply want your agreement that it would, or if
> >> not,
> >> > > >> > clarification why it won't.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I agree it will satisfy my item #1.
> >> > > >> I did not agree in my previous email, but I changed my mind
> based on
> >> > > >> the latest discussion. I have to explain why now.
> >> > > >> I was proposing nightly build because I did not want pre-commit
> >> build
> >> > > >> for Windows block commits to Linux. But if people are fine just
> >> ignoring
> >> > > >> -1s for the Windows part of the build it should be good.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > Regarding item #2, it is also my interpretation that test-patch
> >> > > provides
> >> > > >> > an
> >> > > >> > on-demand (perhaps 20-minutes deferred) Jenkins build and unit
> >> test,
> >> > > >> > with
> >> > > >> > logs available to the developer, so it would satisfy item #2.
>  But
> >> > > >> > rather
> >> > > >> > than assuming that I am interpreting it correctly, I simply

Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)