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
+
Konstantin Shvachko 2013-03-04, 22:30
+
Matt Foley 2013-03-04, 23:29
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk
+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 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
+
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