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

Switch to Plain View
Hadoop, mail # dev - [VOTE] Merge HDFS-4949 to trunk


+
Andrew Wang 2013-10-17, 22:01
+
Colin McCabe 2013-10-17, 22:07
+
Chris Nauroth 2013-10-18, 17:48
+
Colin McCabe 2013-10-18, 18:15
+
Chris Nauroth 2013-10-18, 20:37
+
Chris Nauroth 2013-10-23, 20:03
+
Andrew Wang 2013-10-23, 21:18
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] Merge HDFS-4949 to trunk
Chris Nauroth 2013-10-24, 20:45
Hi Andrew,

I've come to the conclusion that I'm very confused about merge votes.  :-)
 It's not just about HDFS-4949.  I'm confused about all merge votes.
 Rather than muddy the waters here, I've started a separate discussion on
common-dev.

I do agree with the general plan outlined here, and I will comment directly
on the HDFS-4949 jira with a binding +1 when I see that we've completed
that plan.

Chris Nauroth
Hortonworks
http://hortonworks.com/

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Andrew Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Hey Chris,
>
> Right now we're on track to have all of those things done by tomorrow.
> Since the remaining issues are either not technical or do not involve major
> changes, I was hoping we could +1 this merge vote in the spirit of "+1
> pending jenkins". We've gotten clean unit test runs on upstream Jenkins as
> well, so the only fixups we should need for test-patch.sh are findbugs and
> javac (which are normally pretty trivial to clean up). Of course, all of
> your listed prereqs and test-patch would be taken care of before actually
> merging to trunk.
>
> So, we can reset the vote if you feel strongly about this, but it seems
> like the only real result will be delaying the merge by a week.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Chris Nauroth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
>
> > I've received some feedback that we haven't handled this merge vote the
> > same as other comparable merge votes, and that the vote should be reset
> > because of this.
> >
> > The recent custom is that we only call for the merge vote after all
> > pre-requisites have been satisfied.  This would include committing to the
> > feature branch all patches that the devs deem necessary before the code
> > lands in trunk, posting a test plan, posting an updated design doc in
> case
> > implementation choices diverged from the original design doc, and
> getting a
> > good test-patch run from Jenkins on the merge patch.  This was the
> process
> > followed for other recent major features like HDFS-2802 (snapshots),
> > HDFS-347 (short-circuit reads via sharing file descriptors), and
> > HADOOP-8562 (Windows compatibility).  In this thread, we've diverged from
> > that process by calling for a vote on a branch that hasn't yet completed
> > the pre-requisites and stating a plan for work to be done before the
> merge.
> >
> > I still support this work, but can we please restart the vote after the
> > pre-requisites have landed in the branch?
> >
> > Chris Nauroth
> > Hortonworks
> > http://hortonworks.com/
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Chris Nauroth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Sounds great!
> > >
> > > Regarding testing caching+federation, this is another thing that I had
> > > intended to pick up as part of HDFS-5149.  I'm not sure if I can get
> this
> > > done in the next 7 days, so I'll keep you posted.
> > >
> > > Chris Nauroth
> > > Hortonworks
> > > http://hortonworks.com/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Colin McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Chris,
> > >>
> > >> I think it's feasible to complete those tasks in the next 7 days.
> > >> Andrew is on HDFS-5386.
> > >>
> > >> The test plan document is a great idea.  We'll try to get that up
> > >> early next week.  We have a lot of unit tests now, clearly, but some
> > >> manual testing is important too.
> > >>
> > >> If we discover any issues during testing, then we can push out the
> > >> merge timeframe.  For example, one area that probably needs more
> > >> testing is caching+federation.
> > >>
> > >> I would like to get HDFS-5378 and HDFS-5366 in as well.
> > >>
> > >> The other subtasks are "nice to have" but not really critical, and I
> > >> think it would be just as easy to do them in trunk.  We're hoping that
> > >> having this in trunk will make it easier for us to collaborate on
> > >> HDFS-2832 and other ongoing work.
> > >>
> > >> > Also, I want to confirm that this vote only covers trunk.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately
and delete it from your system. Thank You.
+
Aaron T. Myers 2013-10-25, 06:29
+
Suresh Srinivas 2013-10-25, 17:07
+
Chris Nauroth 2013-10-25, 16:51
+
Colin McCabe 2013-10-24, 23:02
+
Aaron T. Myers 2013-10-24, 20:32