Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 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
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk
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 want your
> agreement that it would, or if not, clarification why it won't.

It will satisfy my item #2 in the following way:
I can duplicate your pre-commit build for Windows and add an input
parameter, which would let people run the build on their patches
chosen from local machine rather than attaching them to Jiras.

Thanks,
--Konstantin

> In agile terms, you are the Owner of these requirements.  Please give me
> owner feedback as to whether my proposed work sounds like it will satisfy
> the requirements.
>
> Thank you,
> --Matt
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Didn't I explain in details what I am asking for?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --Konst
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Matt Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Konstantin,
>> > I'd like to point out two things:
>> > First, I already committed in this thread (email of Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at
>> > 6:01 PM) to providing CI for Windows builds.  So please stop acting like
>> > I'm
>> > resisting this idea or something.
>> > Second, you didn't answer my question, you just kvetched about the
>> > phrasing.
>> > So I ask again:
>> >
>> > Will providing full "test-patch" integration (pre-commit build and unit
>> > test
>> > triggered by Jira "Patch Available" state) satisfy your request for
>> > functionality #1 and #2?  Yes or no, please.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > --Matt
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Matt,
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Matt Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Konstantin,
>> >> > I would like to explore what it would take to remove this perceived
>> >> > impediment --
>> >>
>> >> Glad you decided to explore. Thank you.
>> >>
>> >> > although I reserve the right to argue that this is not
>> >> > pre-requisite to merging the cross-platform support patch.
>> >>
>> >> It's your right indeed. So as mine to question what the platform
>> >> support means for you, which I believe remained unclear.
>> >> I do not impede the change as you should have noticed. My requirement
>> >> comes from my perception of the support, which means to me exactly two
>> >> things:
>> >> 1. The ability to recognise the code is broken for the platform
>> >> 2. The ability to test new patches on the platform
>> >> The latter is problematic, as many noticed in this thread, for those
>> >> whose customary environment does not include Windows.
>> >>
>> >> > If we implemented full "test-patch" support for Windows on trunk,
+
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
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-03-25, 21:53
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB