Ubuntu 3 is currently down. It used to be our most reliable test environment.
Until that is fixed I would like to propose requiring a full test run before anything is committed to 0.94.

Comments/Concerns? This is pretty annoying, but I do not see any way around this.
-- Lars

I think that fine for getting something into our current 'stable' offering.
St.Ack
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Ubuntu 3 is currently down. It used to be our most reliable test
> environment.
> Until that is fixed I would like to propose requiring a full test run
> before anything is committed to 0.94.
>
> Comments/Concerns? This is pretty annoying, but I do not see any way
> around this.
>
>
> -- Lars
>

In case of patch that only involves changes to test(s), such as HBASE-8106,
is full test run required ?

Thanks

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I think that fine for getting something into our current 'stable' offering.
> St.Ack
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ubuntu 3 is currently down. It used to be our most reliable test
> > environment.
> > Until that is fixed I would like to propose requiring a full test run
> > before anything is committed to 0.94.
> >
> > Comments/Concerns? This is pretty annoying, but I do not see any way
> > around this.
> >
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
>

I don't think so.

Let's be smart about this; we can look at a patch and see whether we need a full test run or not.
-- Lars
________________________________
 From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: 0.94 automated tests
 
In case of patch that only involves changes to test(s), such as HBASE-8106,
is full test run required ?

Thanks

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I think that fine for getting something into our current 'stable' offering.
> St.Ack
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ubuntu 3 is currently down. It used to be our most reliable test
> > environment.
> > Until that is fixed I would like to propose requiring a full test run
> > before anything is committed to 0.94.
> >
> > Comments/Concerns? This is pretty annoying, but I do not see any way
> > around this.
> >
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
>

Agreed Lars.  +1.

Regards
Ram

On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 7:06 AM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I don't think so.
>
> Let's be smart about this; we can look at a patch and see whether we need
> a full test run or not.
>
>
> -- Lars
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 12:14 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.94 automated tests
>
> In case of patch that only involves changes to test(s), such as HBASE-8106,
> is full test run required ?
>
> Thanks
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think that fine for getting something into our current 'stable'
> offering.
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Ubuntu 3 is currently down. It used to be our most reliable test
> > > environment.
> > > Until that is fixed I would like to propose requiring a full test run
> > > before anything is committed to 0.94.
> > >
> > > Comments/Concerns? This is pretty annoying, but I do not see any way
> > > around this.
> > >
> > >
> > > -- Lars
> > >
> >
>