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

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


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk
Yes, you are right of course - the mis-merged commit is the cause. Thanks for
pointing this out!

I think it would be beneficial if we had branch-2 on going build in the
Jenkins. I will go ahead and create one tonight.

Cos

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 05:09PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
> Adding other mailing lists I missed earlier.
>
> Cos,
>
> There is progress being made on that ticket. Also it has nothing to do with
> that.
>
> Please follow the discussion here and why this happened due to an invalid
> commit that was reverted -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-4615?focusedCommentId=13612650&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13612650
>
> Regards,
> Suresh
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:17 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 want