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
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