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

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


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk
Hi Konstantin S,

I accidentally merged some windows bug fixes to branch-2.  However, branch-2 did not compile -- it showed that the windows changes were missing in branch-2.  The ones causing compilation problems were already reverted (Thanks Sid and Suresh.)  Sorry for the inconvenience. 
Tsz-Wo
________________________________
 From: Konstantin Shvachko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 5:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk
 
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