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

Switch to Plain View
HBase >> mail # dev >> 0.94 tests back in shape and some guidelines


+
lars hofhansl 2012-12-25, 19:57
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2012-12-25, 20:11
+
yuzhihong@... 2012-12-25, 21:17
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-12-26, 01:29
+
Ted Yu 2012-12-26, 07:38
+
ramkrishna vasudevan 2012-12-26, 03:49
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-12-27, 06:02
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-12-28, 05:02
+
lars hofhansl 2012-12-27, 06:29
+
Stack 2012-12-26, 16:53
+
Stack 2012-12-26, 17:08
+
Stack 2012-12-26, 18:03
+
Enis Söztutar 2012-12-26, 20:02
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-12-27, 04:05
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2012-12-27, 19:49
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2012-12-27, 21:35
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-12-27, 21:03
+
lars hofhansl 2012-12-27, 06:37
+
Enis Söztutar 2012-12-27, 19:26
+
Ted Yu 2012-12-29, 00:28
+
lars hofhansl 2012-12-29, 00:34
+
Jesse Yates 2012-12-29, 19:45
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-12-31, 18:34
Copy link to this message
-
Re: 0.94 tests back in shape and some guidelines
I wouldn't mind posting test results on the resolution comment of a 0.94
commit, but there have a couple of times where all tests have passed for me
locally but then failed up on ASF Jenkins. One dev box may not be much like
another. I think the best option is to set up ASF Jenkins for what you
think we need, Ted.

On Friday, December 28, 2012, Ted Yu wrote:

> Since we don't have Hadoop QA for 0.94 patches yet, does it make sense for
> either contributor (patch owner) or the committer who plans to integrate
> the patch to present test suite result before integration ?
>
> There is subtle difference between 0.94 and trunk which may lead to
> unexpected results.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > I think it is not a matter of running the tests N times, but more so on
> > running different platforms. From our builds, what we see most often is
> > that the test runs just fine under CentOS 6, but becomes more flaky under
> > CentOS 5 possibly b/c of thread scheduling differences. Moreover, under
> > windows, the threads are not immediately scheduled to run after start()
> > which causes further race conditions which does not occur so frequently
> > under *nix systems.
> >
> > For 0.94 QA, theoretically we should not this. However in practice I see
> > that if there is a brave soul to work on it, we will find it useful.
> >
> > Enis
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 10:37 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<javascript:;>
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If we make it too onerous we'll see fewer contributions especially in
> the
> > > test area. :)
> > >
> >
>
--
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
+
Lars Hofhansl 2012-12-26, 16:47