I had posted heads up about merging branch-trunk-win to trunk on Feb 8th. I
am happy to announce that we are ready for the merge.

Here is a brief recap on the highlights of the work done:
- Command-line scripts for the Hadoop surface area
- Mapping the HDFS permissions model to Windows
- Abstracted and reconciled mismatches around differences in Path semantics
in Java and Windows
- Native Task Controller for Windows
- Implementation of a Block Placement Policy to support cloud environments,
more specifically Azure.
- Implementation of Hadoop native libraries for Windows (compression
codecs, native I/O)
- Several reliability issues, including race-conditions, intermittent test
failures, resource leaks.
- Several new unit test cases written for the above changes

Please find the details of the work in CHANGES.branch-trunk-win.txt -
Common changes<http://bit.ly/Xe7Ynv>, HDFS changes<http://bit.ly/13QOSo9>,
and YARN and MapReduce changes <http://bit.ly/128zzMt>. This is the work
ported from branch-1-win to a branch based on trunk.

For details of the testing done, please see the thread -
http://bit.ly/WpavJ4. Merge patch for this is available on HADOOP-8562<
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-8562>.

This was a large undertaking that involved developing code, testing the
entire Hadoop stack, including scale tests. This is made possible only with
the contribution from many many folks in the community. Following people
contributed to this work: Ivan Mitic, Chuan Liu, Ramya Sunil, Bikas Saha,
Kanna Karanam, John Gordon, Brandon Li, Chris Nauroth, David Lao, Sumadhur
Reddy Bolli, Arpit Agarwal, Ahmed El Baz, Mike Liddell, Jing Zhao, Thejas
Nair, Steve Maine, Ganeshan Iyer, Raja Aluri, Giridharan Kesavan, Ramya
Bharathi Nimmagadda, Daryn Sharp, Arun Murthy, Tsz-Wo Nicholas Sze, Suresh
Srinivas and Sanjay Radia. There are many others who contributed as well
providing feedback and comments on numerous jiras.

The vote will run for seven days and will end on March 5, 6:00PM PST.

Regards,
Suresh
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Mahadevan Venkatraman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> It is super exciting to look at the prospect of these changes being merged
> to trunk. Having Windows as one of the supported Hadoop platforms is a
> fantastic opportunity both for the Hadoop project and Microsoft customers.
>
> This work began around a year back when a few of us started with a basic
> port of Hadoop on Windows. Ever since, the Hadoop team in Microsoft have
> made significant progress in the following areas:
> (PS: Some of these items are already included in Suresh's email, but
> including again for completeness)
>
> - Command-line scripts for the Hadoop surface area
> - Mapping the HDFS permissions model to Windows
> - Abstracted and reconciled mismatches around differences in Path
> semantics in Java and Windows
> - Native Task Controller for Windows
> - Implementation of a Block Placement Policy to support cloud
> environments, more specifically Azure.
> - Implementation of Hadoop native libraries for Windows (compression
> codecs, native I/O) - Several reliability issues, including
> race-conditions, intermittent test failures, resource leaks.
> - Several new unit test cases written for the above changes
>
> In the process, we have closely engaged with the Apache open source
> community and have got great support and assistance from the community in
> terms of contributing fixes, code review comments and commits.
>
> In addition, the Hadoop team at Microsoft has also made good progress in
> other projects including Hive, Pig, Sqoop, Oozie, HCat and HBase. Many of
> these changes have already been committed to the respective trunks with
> help from various committers and contributors. It is great to see the
> commitment of the community to support multiple platforms, and we look
> forward to the day when a developer/customer is able to successfully deploy
> a complete solution stack based on Apache Hadoop releases.
>
> Next Steps:
http://hortonworks.com/download/

After this is merged in is Windows still going to be a second class
citizen but happens to work for more than just development or is it a
fully supported platform where if something breaks it can block a release?
 How do we as a community intend to keep Windows support from breaking?
We don't have any Jenkins slaves to be able to run nightly tests to
validate everything still compiles/runs.  This is not a blocker for me
because we often rely on individuals and groups to test Hadoop, but I do
think we need to have this discussion before we put it in.

--Bobby

On 2/26/13 4:55 PM, "Suresh Srinivas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>I had posted heads up about merging branch-trunk-win to trunk on Feb 8th.
>I
>am happy to announce that we are ready for the merge.
>
>Here is a brief recap on the highlights of the work done:
>- Command-line scripts for the Hadoop surface area
>- Mapping the HDFS permissions model to Windows
>- Abstracted and reconciled mismatches around differences in Path
>semantics
>in Java and Windows
>- Native Task Controller for Windows
>- Implementation of a Block Placement Policy to support cloud
>environments,
>more specifically Azure.
>- Implementation of Hadoop native libraries for Windows (compression
>codecs, native I/O)
>- Several reliability issues, including race-conditions, intermittent test
>failures, resource leaks.
>- Several new unit test cases written for the above changes
>
>Please find the details of the work in CHANGES.branch-trunk-win.txt -
>Common changes<http://bit.ly/Xe7Ynv>, HDFS changes<http://bit.ly/13QOSo9>,
>and YARN and MapReduce changes <http://bit.ly/128zzMt>. This is the work
>ported from branch-1-win to a branch based on trunk.
>
>For details of the testing done, please see the thread -
>http://bit.ly/WpavJ4. Merge patch for this is available on HADOOP-8562<
>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-8562>.
>
>This was a large undertaking that involved developing code, testing the
>entire Hadoop stack, including scale tests. This is made possible only
>with
>the contribution from many many folks in the community. Following people
>contributed to this work: Ivan Mitic, Chuan Liu, Ramya Sunil, Bikas Saha,
>Kanna Karanam, John Gordon, Brandon Li, Chris Nauroth, David Lao, Sumadhur
>Reddy Bolli, Arpit Agarwal, Ahmed El Baz, Mike Liddell, Jing Zhao, Thejas
>Nair, Steve Maine, Ganeshan Iyer, Raja Aluri, Giridharan Kesavan, Ramya
>Bharathi Nimmagadda, Daryn Sharp, Arun Murthy, Tsz-Wo Nicholas Sze, Suresh
>Srinivas and Sanjay Radia. There are many others who contributed as well
>providing feedback and comments on numerous jiras.
>
>The vote will run for seven days and will end on March 5, 6:00PM PST.
>
>Regards,
>Suresh
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Mahadevan Venkatraman
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> It is super exciting to look at the prospect of these changes being
>>merged
>> to trunk. Having Windows as one of the supported Hadoop platforms is a
>> fantastic opportunity both for the Hadoop project and Microsoft
>>customers.
>>
>> This work began around a year back when a few of us started with a basic
>> port of Hadoop on Windows. Ever since, the Hadoop team in Microsoft have
>> made significant progress in the following areas:
>> (PS: Some of these items are already included in Suresh's email, but
>> including again for completeness)
>>
>> - Command-line scripts for the Hadoop surface area
>> - Mapping the HDFS permissions model to Windows
>> - Abstracted and reconciled mismatches around differences in Path
>> semantics in Java and Windows
>> - Native Task Controller for Windows
>> - Implementation of a Block Placement Policy to support cloud
>> environments, more specifically Azure.
>> - Implementation of Hadoop native libraries for Windows (compression
>> codecs, native I/O) - Several reliability issues, including
>> race-conditions, intermittent test failures, resource leaks.
>> - Several new unit test cases written for the above changes
>>
>> In the process, we have closely engaged with the Apache open source

Similar personal concern as Robert: Does this bring about a
development process change? Do new features all need to work on
Windows as well to go into trunk (i.e. immediately or eventually,
either way requires a new policy for all of us devs)? Not that anyone
would be avoiding doing that, I just ask cause it could impact time
and effort required for any major undertaking.

While most of the project today is cross-platform (via Java, etc.,
which thankfully remove path handling problems and the sorts),
performance improvements at least are going the native side these
days, which is where I see this have some impact. We've not been
perfectly successful in having the natives continuously work on
Solaris/etc. in the past, mainly due to the platform focus of the
majority (not all) of devs working on the project(s). Some form of a
development policy here would ensure proper Windows support for the
features we intend to ship along are not very divergent such that we
end up having to maintain docs as well, detailing each task yet to be
done (these tend to grow if allowed).

Useful to also note from another OSS project KDE, that their working
builds of Windows are usually on 1-2 releases of the past (i.e. for
example, KDE release is currently at 4.10, but the last released
Windows port is still 4.8 today). KDE uses Qt, which is cross-platform
by itself, but there's still a port team and a ported release
maintained separately (but under the same org.) due to the major
development happening on Linux. Same case for *BSD as well. My own
patches there at some point have caused trouble cause I did something
that I only tested on one platform, and about a bit later things got
revised to support the other ones where it was unnecessarily breaking.

Or if am being too concerned about feature/performance divergence, let me know.

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After this is merged in is Windows still going to be a second class
> citizen but happens to work for more than just development or is it a
> fully supported platform where if something breaks it can block a release?
>  How do we as a community intend to keep Windows support from breaking?
> We don't have any Jenkins slaves to be able to run nightly tests to
> validate everything still compiles/runs.  This is not a blocker for me
> because we often rely on individuals and groups to test Hadoop, but I do
> think we need to have this discussion before we put it in.
>
> --Bobby
>
> On 2/26/13 4:55 PM, "Suresh Srinivas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I had posted heads up about merging branch-trunk-win to trunk on Feb 8th.
>>I
>>am happy to announce that we are ready for the merge.
>>
>>Here is a brief recap on the highlights of the work done:
>>- Command-line scripts for the Hadoop surface area
>>- Mapping the HDFS permissions model to Windows
>>- Abstracted and reconciled mismatches around differences in Path
>>semantics
>>in Java and Windows
>>- Native Task Controller for Windows
>>- Implementation of a Block Placement Policy to support cloud
>>environments,
>>more specifically Azure.
>>- Implementation of Hadoop native libraries for Windows (compression
>>codecs, native I/O)
>>- Several reliability issues, including race-conditions, intermittent test
>>failures, resource leaks.
>>- Several new unit test cases written for the above changes
>>
>>Please find the details of the work in CHANGES.branch-trunk-win.txt -
>>Common changes<http://bit.ly/Xe7Ynv>, HDFS changes<http://bit.ly/13QOSo9>,
>>and YARN and MapReduce changes <http://bit.ly/128zzMt>. This is the work
>>ported from branch-1-win to a branch based on trunk.
>>
>>For details of the testing done, please see the thread -
>>http://bit.ly/WpavJ4. Merge patch for this is available on HADOOP-8562<
>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-8562>.
>>
>>This was a large undertaking that involved developing code, testing the
>>entire Hadoop stack, including scale tests. This is made possible only

Harsh J

Bobby raises some good questions.  A related one, since most current
developers won't add Windows support for new features that are
platform specific is it assumed that Windows development will either
lag or will people actively work on keeping Windows up with the
latest?  And vice versa in case Windows support is implemented first.

Is there a jira for resolving the outstanding TODOs in the code base
(similar to HDFS-2148)?  Looks like this merge doesn't introduce many
which is great (just did a quick diff and grep).

Thanks,
Eli

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After this is merged in is Windows still going to be a second class
> citizen but happens to work for more than just development or is it a
> fully supported platform where if something breaks it can block a release?
>  How do we as a community intend to keep Windows support from breaking?
> We don't have any Jenkins slaves to be able to run nightly tests to
> validate everything still compiles/runs.  This is not a blocker for me
> because we often rely on individuals and groups to test Hadoop, but I do
> think we need to have this discussion before we put it in.
>
> --Bobby
>
> On 2/26/13 4:55 PM, "Suresh Srinivas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I had posted heads up about merging branch-trunk-win to trunk on Feb 8th.
>>I
>>am happy to announce that we are ready for the merge.
>>
>>Here is a brief recap on the highlights of the work done:
>>- Command-line scripts for the Hadoop surface area
>>- Mapping the HDFS permissions model to Windows
>>- Abstracted and reconciled mismatches around differences in Path
>>semantics
>>in Java and Windows
>>- Native Task Controller for Windows
>>- Implementation of a Block Placement Policy to support cloud
>>environments,
>>more specifically Azure.
>>- Implementation of Hadoop native libraries for Windows (compression
>>codecs, native I/O)
>>- Several reliability issues, including race-conditions, intermittent test
>>failures, resource leaks.
>>- Several new unit test cases written for the above changes
>>
>>Please find the details of the work in CHANGES.branch-trunk-win.txt -
>>Common changes<http://bit.ly/Xe7Ynv>, HDFS changes<http://bit.ly/13QOSo9>,
>>and YARN and MapReduce changes <http://bit.ly/128zzMt>. This is the work
>>ported from branch-1-win to a branch based on trunk.
>>
>>For details of the testing done, please see the thread -
>>http://bit.ly/WpavJ4. Merge patch for this is available on HADOOP-8562<
>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-8562>.
>>
>>This was a large undertaking that involved developing code, testing the
>>entire Hadoop stack, including scale tests. This is made possible only
>>with
>>the contribution from many many folks in the community. Following people
>>contributed to this work: Ivan Mitic, Chuan Liu, Ramya Sunil, Bikas Saha,
>>Kanna Karanam, John Gordon, Brandon Li, Chris Nauroth, David Lao, Sumadhur
>>Reddy Bolli, Arpit Agarwal, Ahmed El Baz, Mike Liddell, Jing Zhao, Thejas
>>Nair, Steve Maine, Ganeshan Iyer, Raja Aluri, Giridharan Kesavan, Ramya
>>Bharathi Nimmagadda, Daryn Sharp, Arun Murthy, Tsz-Wo Nicholas Sze, Suresh
>>Srinivas and Sanjay Radia. There are many others who contributed as well
>>providing feedback and comments on numerous jiras.
>>
>>The vote will run for seven days and will end on March 5, 6:00PM PST.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Suresh
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Mahadevan Venkatraman
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>
>>> It is super exciting to look at the prospect of these changes being
>>>merged
>>> to trunk. Having Windows as one of the supported Hadoop platforms is a
>>> fantastic opportunity both for the Hadoop project and Microsoft
>>>customers.
>>>
>>> This work began around a year back when a few of us started with a basic
>>> port of Hadoop on Windows. Ever since, the Hadoop team in Microsoft have
>>> made significant progress in the following areas:
>>> (PS: Some of these items are already included in Suresh's email, but

Thanks for raising good questions.

Currently the merge patch passes all the tests on Linux, hence
the proposal for merging the patch to trunk. But as Bobby, Harsh
and Eli pointed out, before declaring support for Windows, we need the
discussion on the following:

1. Precommit and development process
Jenkins infrastructure for Windows build will be made available.
Giri and Microsoft contributors have volunteered to help make
this happen.

With that we need to decide how our precommit process looks.
My inclination is to wait for +1 from precommit builds on
both the platforms to ensure no issues are introduced.
Thoughts?

2. Feature development impact
Some questions have been raised about would new features
need to be supported on both the platforms. Yes. I do not see a
reason why features cannot work on both the platforms, with
the exception of platform specific optimizations. This what Java
gives us.

3. Platform specific features/optimizations
As regards platform specific optimization, each platform can
evolve at its own pace and should not block progress of a
specific platform.

As indicated in my earlier email, there is a sizable number
of contributors to work on issues and support of Hadoop on Windows
platform. I am excited to see Hadoop reach the other large
part of server market.

Eli, as pointed out by you, the TODO items need to be addressed.
Also we realized we still need to add information on how to
build on Windows in BUILDING.txt. We will address this ASAP.
Giri and Matt have some expirience with this and should be able
to provide more information.

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Bobby raises some good questions.  A related one, since most current
> developers won't add Windows support for new features that are
> platform specific is it assumed that Windows development will either
> lag or will people actively work on keeping Windows up with the
> latest?  And vice versa in case Windows support is implemented first.
>
> Is there a jira for resolving the outstanding TODOs in the code base
> (similar to HDFS-2148)?  Looks like this merge doesn't introduce many
> which is great (just did a quick diff and grep).
>
> Thanks,
> Eli
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > After this is merged in is Windows still going to be a second class
> > citizen but happens to work for more than just development or is it a
> > fully supported platform where if something breaks it can block a
> release?
> >  How do we as a community intend to keep Windows support from breaking?
> > We don't have any Jenkins slaves to be able to run nightly tests to
> > validate everything still compiles/runs.  This is not a blocker for me
> > because we often rely on individuals and groups to test Hadoop, but I do
> > think we need to have this discussion before we put it in.
> >
> > --Bobby
> >
> > On 2/26/13 4:55 PM, "Suresh Srinivas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>I had posted heads up about merging branch-trunk-win to trunk on Feb 8th.
> >>I
> >>am happy to announce that we are ready for the merge.
> >>
> >>Here is a brief recap on the highlights of the work done:
> >>- Command-line scripts for the Hadoop surface area
> >>- Mapping the HDFS permissions model to Windows
> >>- Abstracted and reconciled mismatches around differences in Path
> >>semantics
> >>in Java and Windows
> >>- Native Task Controller for Windows
> >>- Implementation of a Block Placement Policy to support cloud
> >>environments,
> >>more specifically Azure.
> >>- Implementation of Hadoop native libraries for Windows (compression
> >>codecs, native I/O)
> >>- Several reliability issues, including race-conditions, intermittent
> test
> >>failures, resource leaks.
> >>- Several new unit test cases written for the above changes
> >>
> >>Please find the details of the work in CHANGES.branch-trunk-win.txt -
> >>Common changes<http://bit.ly/Xe7Ynv>, HDFS changes<http://bit.ly/13QOSo9
> >,

http://hortonworks.com/download/

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Suresh Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> With that we need to decide how our precommit process looks.
> My inclination is to wait for +1 from precommit builds on
> both the platforms to ensure no issues are introduced.
> Thoughts?
>
> 2. Feature development impact
> Some questions have been raised about would new features
> need to be supported on both the platforms. Yes. I do not see a
> reason why features cannot work on both the platforms, with
> the exception of platform specific optimizations. This what Java
> gives us.
>
>
I'm concerned about the above. Personally, I don't have access to any
Windows boxes with development tools, and I know nothing about developing
on Windows. The only Windows I run is an 8GB VM with 1 GB RAM allocated,
for powerpoint :)

If I submit a patch and it gets -1 "tests failed" on the Windows slave, how
am I supposed to proceed?

I think a reasonable compromise would be that the tests should always
*build* on Windows before commit, and contributors should do their best to
look at the test logs for any Windows-specific failures. But, beyond
looking at the logs, a "-1 Tests failed on windows" should not block a
commit.

Those contributors who are interested in Windows being a first-class
platform should be responsible for watching the Windows builds and
debugging/fixing any regressions that might be Windows-specific.

I also think the KDE model that Harsh pointed out is an interesting one --
ie the idea that we would not merge windows support to trunk, but rather
treat is as a "parallel code line" which lives in the ASF and has its own
builds and releases. The windows team would periodically merge trunk->win
to pick up any new changes, and do a separate test/release process. I'm not
convinced this is the best idea, but worth discussion of pros and cons.

-Todd
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Bobby raises some good questions.  A related one, since most current
> > developers won't add Windows support for new features that are
> > platform specific is it assumed that Windows development will either
> > lag or will people actively work on keeping Windows up with the
> > latest?  And vice versa in case Windows support is implemented first.
> >
> > Is there a jira for resolving the outstanding TODOs in the code base
> > (similar to HDFS-2148)?  Looks like this merge doesn't introduce many
> > which is great (just did a quick diff and grep).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Eli
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > After this is merged in is Windows still going to be a second class
> > > citizen but happens to work for more than just development or is it a
> > > fully supported platform where if something breaks it can block a
> > release?
> > >  How do we as a community intend to keep Windows support from breaking?
> > > We don't have any Jenkins slaves to be able to run nightly tests to
> > > validate everything still compiles/runs.  This is not a blocker for me
> > > because we often rely on individuals and groups to test Hadoop, but I
> do
> > > think we need to have this discussion before we put it in.
> > >
> > > --Bobby
> > >
> > > On 2/26/13 4:55 PM, "Suresh Srinivas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >>I had posted heads up about merging branch-trunk-win to trunk on Feb
> 8th.
> > >>I
> > >>am happy to announce that we are ready for the merge.
> > >>
> > >>Here is a brief recap on the highlights of the work done:
> > >>- Command-line scripts for the Hadoop surface area
> > >>- Mapping the HDFS permissions model to Windows
> > >>- Abstracted and reconciled mismatches around differences in Path
> > >>semantics
> > >>in Java and Windows
> > >>- Native Task Controller for Windows
> > >>- Implementation of a Block Placement Policy to support cloud
> > >>environments,
> > >>more specifically Azure.
> > >>- Implementation of Hadoop native libraries for Windows (compression

Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

+1 (non-binding)

I am really glad to see this happening! As people already mentioned, this has been a great engineering effort involving many people!
Folks raised some valid concerns below and I thought it would be good to share my 2 cents. In my opinion, we don't have to solve all these problems right now. As we move forward with two platforms, we can start addressing one problem at a time and incrementally improve. In the first iteration, maintaining Hadoop on Windows could be just everyone trying to do their best effort (make sure Jenkins build succeeds at least). We already have people who are building/running trunk on Windows daily, so they would jump in and fix problems as needed (we've been doing this in branch-trunk-win for a while now). Although I see that the problems could arise with platform specific features/optimizations, I don't think these are frequent, so in most cases everything will just work. Merging the two branches sooner rather than later does seems like the right thing to do if the ultimate goal is to have Hadoop on both platforms. Now that the port has completed, we will have people in Microsoft (and elsewhere) wanting to contribute features/improvements to the trunk branch. A separate branch would just make things more difficult and confusing for everyone :) Hope this makes sense.

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Lipcon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 3:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Suresh Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> With that we need to decide how our precommit process looks.
> My inclination is to wait for +1 from precommit builds on both the
> platforms to ensure no issues are introduced.
> Thoughts?
>
> 2. Feature development impact
> Some questions have been raised about would new features need to be
> supported on both the platforms. Yes. I do not see a reason why
> features cannot work on both the platforms, with the exception of
> platform specific optimizations. This what Java gives us.
>
>
I'm concerned about the above. Personally, I don't have access to any Windows boxes with development tools, and I know nothing about developing on Windows. The only Windows I run is an 8GB VM with 1 GB RAM allocated, for powerpoint :)

If I submit a patch and it gets -1 "tests failed" on the Windows slave, how am I supposed to proceed?

I think a reasonable compromise would be that the tests should always
*build* on Windows before commit, and contributors should do their best to look at the test logs for any Windows-specific failures. But, beyond looking at the logs, a "-1 Tests failed on windows" should not block a commit.

Those contributors who are interested in Windows being a first-class platform should be responsible for watching the Windows builds and debugging/fixing any regressions that might be Windows-specific.

I also think the KDE model that Harsh pointed out is an interesting one -- ie the idea that we would not merge windows support to trunk, but rather treat is as a "parallel code line" which lives in the ASF and has its own builds and releases. The windows team would periodically merge trunk->win to pick up any new changes, and do a separate test/release process. I'm not convinced this is the best idea, but worth discussion of pros and cons.

-Todd
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Bobby raises some good questions.  A related one, since most current
> > developers won't add Windows support for new features that are
> > platform specific is it assumed that Windows development will either
> > lag or will people actively work on keeping Windows up with the
> > latest?  And vice versa in case Windows support is implemented first.
> >
> > Is there a jira for resolving the outstanding TODOs in the code base

Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

+1 (non-binding)

I want to share my vote of confidence in this community.  If motivated to do so, this community can keep this project cross-platform and continue to rapidly innovate without breaking a sweat.

The day we started working on this, I saw the foundations of greatness in the quality and volume of dev tests, the code itself, and the Apache values themselves.

1.) Hadoop's unit tests and their frameworks are very well thought out and the consideration and energy that went into their design is worthy of praise.  The MiniCluster abstractions utilize very few resources and put all the processes into one JVM for easy debugging.  It is very easy to select specific tests from the full suite to reproduce an issue reported in another environment - like the Jenkins build server or another contributor's environment.  
2.) This community has done an excellent job of incorporating well-placed log messages to make it easy to post mortem troubleshoot most failures.  The logs are very useful, and it is extremely rare that troubleshooting a failure requires debugging a live repro.
3.) Hadoop is written primarily in Java, a cross-platform language that provides its own platform in the form of the JVM to insulate most of the code from the specifics of the OS layer.
4.) CoPDoC - The right priorities, and well stated.
Thank you,

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Mitic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 6:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk

+1 (non-binding)

I am really glad to see this happening! As people already mentioned, this has been a great engineering effort involving many people!
Folks raised some valid concerns below and I thought it would be good to share my 2 cents. In my opinion, we don't have to solve all these problems right now. As we move forward with two platforms, we can start addressing one problem at a time and incrementally improve. In the first iteration, maintaining Hadoop on Windows could be just everyone trying to do their best effort (make sure Jenkins build succeeds at least). We already have people who are building/running trunk on Windows daily, so they would jump in and fix problems as needed (we've been doing this in branch-trunk-win for a while now). Although I see that the problems could arise with platform specific features/optimizations, I don't think these are frequent, so in most cases everything will just work. Merging the two branches sooner rather than later does seems like the right thing to do if the ultimate goal is to have Hadoop on both platforms. Now that the port has completed, we will have people in Microsoft (and elsewhere) wanting to contribute features/improvements to the trunk branch. A separate branch would just make things more difficult and confusing for everyone :) Hope this makes sense.

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Lipcon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 3:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Suresh Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> With that we need to decide how our precommit process looks.
> My inclination is to wait for +1 from precommit builds on both the
> platforms to ensure no issues are introduced.
> Thoughts?
>
> 2. Feature development impact
> Some questions have been raised about would new features need to be
> supported on both the platforms. Yes. I do not see a reason why
> features cannot work on both the platforms, with the exception of
> platform specific optimizations. This what Java gives us.
>
>
I'm concerned about the above. Personally, I don't have access to any Windows boxes with development tools, and I know nothing about developing on Windows. The only Windows I run is an 8GB VM with 1 GB RAM allocated, for powerpoint :)

If I submit a patch and it gets -1 "tests failed" on the Windows slave, how am I supposed to proceed?

I think a reasonable compromise would be that the tests should always
*build* on Windows before commit, and contributors should do their best to look at the test logs for any Windows-specific failures. But, beyond looking at the logs, a "-1 Tests failed on windows" should not block a commit.

Those contributors who are interested in Windows being a first-class platform should be responsible for watching the Windows builds and debugging/fixing any regressions that might be Windows-specific.

I also think the KDE model that Harsh pointed out is an interesting one -- ie the idea that we would not merge windows support to trunk, but rather treat is as a "parallel code line" which lives in the ASF and has its own builds and releases. The windows team would periodically merge trunk->win to pick up any new changes, and do a separate test/release process. I'm not convinced this is the best idea, but worth discussion of pros and cons.

-Todd

Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

I'd like to share a few anecdotes about developing cross-platform,
hopefully to address some of the concerns about adding overhead to the
development process.  By reviewing past cases of cross-platform Linux vs.
Windows bugs, we can get a sense for how the development process could look
in the future.

HADOOP-9131: TestLocalFileSystem#testListStatusWithColons cannot run on
Windows.  As part of an earlier jira, HADOOP-8962, there was a new test
committed on trunk covering the case of a local file system interaction on
a file containing a ':'.  On Windows, ':' in a path has special meaning as
part of the drive specifier (i.e. C:), so this test cannot pass when
running on Windows.  In this kind of case, the cross-platform bug is
obvious, and the fix is obvious (assumeTrue(!Shell.WINDOWS)).  Ideally,
this would get fixed pre-commit after seeing a -1 from the Windows Jenkins
slave.

HDFS-4274: BlockPoolSliceScanner does not close verification log during
shutdown.  This caused problems for MiniDFSCluster-based tests running on
Windows.  Failure to close the verification log meant that we didn't
release file locks, so the tests couldn't delete/recreate working
directories during teardown/setup.  Arguably, this was always a bug, and
running on Windows just exposed it because of its stricter rules about file
locking.  This is a more complex fix, but it doesn't require
platform-specific knowledge.  If some future patch accidentally regresses
this, then we'll likely see +1 from Linux Jenkins and -1 from Windows
Jenkins.  Ideally, it would get fixed pre-commit, because it doesn't
require Windows-specific knowledge.  There is also the matter of impact.
 Re-breaking this would re-break many test suites on Windows.

HADOOP-9232: JniBasedUnixGroupsMappingWithFallback fails on Windows with
UnsatisfiedLinkError.  This was introduced by HADOOP-8712, which switched
to JniBasedUnixGroupsMappingWithFallback as the default
hadoop.security.group.mapping, but did not provide a Windows implementation
of the JNI function.  In this case, there was a strong desire to get
HADOOP-8712 into a release, fixing it on Windows required native Windows
API knowledge, and Windows users had a simple workaround available by
changing their configs back to ShellBasedUnixGroupsMapping.  I think this
is the kind of situation where we could allow HADOOP-8712 to commit despite
-1 from Windows Jenkins, with fairly quick follow-up from an engineer with
the Windows expertise to fix it.

To summarize, I don't think it needs to differ greatly from our current
development process.  We're all responsible for breadth of understanding
and maintenance of the whole codebase, but we also rely on specific
individuals with deep expertise in particular areas for certain issues.
 Sometimes we commit despite a -1 from Jenkins, based on the community's
judgment.

Virtualization greatly simplifies cross-platform development.  I use
VirtualBox on a Mac host and run VMs for Windows and Ubuntu with a shared
drive so that they can all see the same copy of the source code.  There are
plenty of variations on this depending on your preference, such as
offloading the VMs to a separate server or cloud service to free up local
RAM.  I'm planning on submitting BUILDING.txt changes later today that
fully describe how to build on Windows.  After some initial setup, it's
nearly identical to the mvn commands that you already use today.

Hope this helps,
--Chris
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 3:25 AM, John Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
> I want to share my vote of confidence in this community.  If motivated to
> do so, this community can keep this project cross-platform and continue to
> rapidly innovate without breaking a sweat.
>
> The day we started working on this, I saw the foundations of greatness in
> the quality and volume of dev tests, the code itself, and the Apache values
> themselves.
>
> 1.) Hadoop's unit tests and their frameworks are very well thought out and
> the consideration and energy that went into their design is worthy of

My initial question was mostly intended to understand the desired new
classification of Windows after the merge, and how we plan to maintain
Windows support.  I am happy to hear that hardware for Jenkins will be
provided.  I am also fine, at least initially, with us trying to treat
Windows as a first class supported platform.  But I realize that there are
a lot of people that do not have easy access to Windows for
development/debugging, myself included. I also don't want to slow down the
pace of development too much because of this.  It will cause some
organizations that do not use or support Windows to be more likely to run
software that has diverged from an official release.  It also has the
potential to make the patch submission process even more difficult, which
increases the likelihood of submitters abandoning patches.  However, the
great thing about being in a community is we can change if we need to.

I am +0 for the merge.  I am not a Windows expert so I don't feel
comfortable giving it a true +1.

--Bobby
On 2/28/13 10:45 AM, "Chris Nauroth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>I'd like to share a few anecdotes about developing cross-platform,
>hopefully to address some of the concerns about adding overhead to the
>development process.  By reviewing past cases of cross-platform Linux vs.
>Windows bugs, we can get a sense for how the development process could
>look
>in the future.
>
>HADOOP-9131: TestLocalFileSystem#testListStatusWithColons cannot run on
>Windows.  As part of an earlier jira, HADOOP-8962, there was a new test
>committed on trunk covering the case of a local file system interaction on
>a file containing a ':'.  On Windows, ':' in a path has special meaning as
>part of the drive specifier (i.e. C:), so this test cannot pass when
>running on Windows.  In this kind of case, the cross-platform bug is
>obvious, and the fix is obvious (assumeTrue(!Shell.WINDOWS)).  Ideally,
>this would get fixed pre-commit after seeing a -1 from the Windows Jenkins
>slave.
>
>HDFS-4274: BlockPoolSliceScanner does not close verification log during
>shutdown.  This caused problems for MiniDFSCluster-based tests running on
>Windows.  Failure to close the verification log meant that we didn't
>release file locks, so the tests couldn't delete/recreate working
>directories during teardown/setup.  Arguably, this was always a bug, and
>running on Windows just exposed it because of its stricter rules about
>file
>locking.  This is a more complex fix, but it doesn't require
>platform-specific knowledge.  If some future patch accidentally regresses
>this, then we'll likely see +1 from Linux Jenkins and -1 from Windows
>Jenkins.  Ideally, it would get fixed pre-commit, because it doesn't
>require Windows-specific knowledge.  There is also the matter of impact.
> Re-breaking this would re-break many test suites on Windows.
>
>HADOOP-9232: JniBasedUnixGroupsMappingWithFallback fails on Windows with
>UnsatisfiedLinkError.  This was introduced by HADOOP-8712, which switched
>to JniBasedUnixGroupsMappingWithFallback as the default
>hadoop.security.group.mapping, but did not provide a Windows
>implementation
>of the JNI function.  In this case, there was a strong desire to get
>HADOOP-8712 into a release, fixing it on Windows required native Windows
>API knowledge, and Windows users had a simple workaround available by
>changing their configs back to ShellBasedUnixGroupsMapping.  I think this
>is the kind of situation where we could allow HADOOP-8712 to commit
>despite
>-1 from Windows Jenkins, with fairly quick follow-up from an engineer with
>the Windows expertise to fix it.
>
>To summarize, I don't think it needs to differ greatly from our current
>development process.  We're all responsible for breadth of understanding
>and maintenance of the whole codebase, but we also rely on specific
>individuals with deep expertise in particular areas for certain issues.
> Sometimes we commit despite a -1 from Jenkins, based on the community's
>judgment.

> Is there a jira for resolving the outstanding TODOs in the code base
> (similar to HDFS-2148)?  Looks like this merge doesn't introduce many
> which is great (just did a quick diff and grep).

I found 2 remaining TODOs introduced in the current merge patch.  One is in
ContainerLaunch.java.  The container launch script was trying to set a
CLASSPATH that exceeded the Windows maximum command line length.  The fix
was to wrap the long classpath into an intermediate jar containing only a
manifest file with a Class-Path entry.  (See YARN-316.)  Just to be
conservative, we wrapped this logic in an if (Shell.WINDOWS) guard and
marked a TODO to remove it later and use that approach on all platforms
after additional testing.  I've tested this code path successfully on Mac
too, but several people wanted additional testing and performance checks
before removing the if (Shell.WINDOWS) guard.  That work is tracked in an
existing jira: YARN-358.

The other TODO is for winutils to print more usage information and
examples.  At this point, I think winutils is printing sufficient
information, and we can just remove the TODO.  I just submitted a new jira
to start that conversation: HADOOP-9348.

Thank you,
--Chris
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> My initial question was mostly intended to understand the desired new
> classification of Windows after the merge, and how we plan to maintain
> Windows support.  I am happy to hear that hardware for Jenkins will be
> provided.  I am also fine, at least initially, with us trying to treat
> Windows as a first class supported platform.  But I realize that there are
> a lot of people that do not have easy access to Windows for
> development/debugging, myself included. I also don't want to slow down the
> pace of development too much because of this.  It will cause some
> organizations that do not use or support Windows to be more likely to run
> software that has diverged from an official release.  It also has the
> potential to make the patch submission process even more difficult, which
> increases the likelihood of submitters abandoning patches.  However, the
> great thing about being in a community is we can change if we need to.
>
> I am +0 for the merge.  I am not a Windows expert so I don't feel
> comfortable giving it a true +1.
>
> --Bobby
>
>
> On 2/28/13 10:45 AM, "Chris Nauroth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I'd like to share a few anecdotes about developing cross-platform,
> >hopefully to address some of the concerns about adding overhead to the
> >development process.  By reviewing past cases of cross-platform Linux vs.
> >Windows bugs, we can get a sense for how the development process could
> >look
> >in the future.
> >
> >HADOOP-9131: TestLocalFileSystem#testListStatusWithColons cannot run on
> >Windows.  As part of an earlier jira, HADOOP-8962, there was a new test
> >committed on trunk covering the case of a local file system interaction on
> >a file containing a ':'.  On Windows, ':' in a path has special meaning as
> >part of the drive specifier (i.e. C:), so this test cannot pass when
> >running on Windows.  In this kind of case, the cross-platform bug is
> >obvious, and the fix is obvious (assumeTrue(!Shell.WINDOWS)).  Ideally,
> >this would get fixed pre-commit after seeing a -1 from the Windows Jenkins
> >slave.
> >
> >HDFS-4274: BlockPoolSliceScanner does not close verification log during
> >shutdown.  This caused problems for MiniDFSCluster-based tests running on
> >Windows.  Failure to close the verification log meant that we didn't
> >release file locks, so the tests couldn't delete/recreate working
> >directories during teardown/setup.  Arguably, this was always a bug, and
> >running on Windows just exposed it because of its stricter rules about
> >file
> >locking.  This is a more complex fix, but it doesn't require
> >platform-specific knowledge.  If some future patch accidentally regresses
> >this, then we'll likely see +1 from Linux Jenkins and -1 from Windows

+1 for the merge.

As someone who has been testing the code for many months now, both on
singlenode and multinode clusters, I am very confident about the stability
and the quality of the code. I have run several regression tests to verify
distributed cache, streaming, compression, capacity scheduler, job history
and many more features in HDFS and MR.

- Ramya

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 3:08 PM, sanjay Radia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> +1
> Java has done the bulk of the work in making Hadoop multi-platform.
> Windows specific code is a tiny percentage of the code.
> Jeninks support for windows is going help us keep the platform portable
> going forward.
> I expect that the vast majority of new commits have  no problems. I
> propose that we start by fixing problems that Jenkins raises but not block
> new commits for too long if the author does not have a windows box or if a
> volunteer does not step up.
>
> sanjay
>
>
>
>

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 03:08PM, sanjay Radia wrote:
> +1
> Java has done the bulk of the work in making Hadoop multi-platform.
> Windows specific code is a tiny percentage of the code.
> Jeninks support for windows is going help us keep the platform portable going forward.
> I expect that the vast majority of new commits have  no problems. I propose
> that we start by fixing problems that Jenkins raises but not block new
> commits for too long if the author does not have a windows box or if a
> volunteer does not step up.

Considering a typical set of software most of the people here work with it
would be completely inappropriate to block commits for failing Windows
specific features. After all, Microsoft never did bother to check what
features or compatibilty matters they have broke in Java and elsewhere, so why
should we?

I believe this kind of rules have to be set and discussed before the merge is
done.

Cheers,
  Cos

That's sounds like a reasonable approach. Like you say below, we need to
ensure is that the Java side of OS specific optimizations is generic and
wont need drastic surgery when that optimization is ported to another
platform.

Bikas

-----Original Message-----
From: Uma Maheswara Rao G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk

+1 (non-binding)

 Thanks a lot for the work done by Suresh and team of community!
I don't think there will be much problems because of platform dependancy
as our development is with Java. If we have some native code portings,
then dev members has to take care of them.
One question regarding to it:
Ex: if one contributor is giving the patch for some native code porting
for some performance improvements and he is interested only in Linux. Then
I hope some other contributors will help in getting the windows patch if
possible.
If others busy to get that done with in time lines, then I think we can
commit Linux support patch and leave one JIRA open for Windows support? [
make sure that porting options configurable and platform check and give
release note about platform support..etc?]

Regards,
Uma

________________________________________
From: Suresh Srinivas [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Vote] Merge branch-trunk-win to trunk

I had posted heads up about merging branch-trunk-win to trunk on Feb 8th.
I am happy to announce that we are ready for the merge.

Here is a brief recap on the highlights of the work done:
- Command-line scripts for the Hadoop surface area
- Mapping the HDFS permissions model to Windows
- Abstracted and reconciled mismatches around differences in Path
semantics in Java and Windows
- Native Task Controller for Windows
- Implementation of a Block Placement Policy to support cloud
environments, more specifically Azure.
- Implementation of Hadoop native libraries for Windows (compression
codecs, native I/O)
- Several reliability issues, including race-conditions, intermittent test
failures, resource leaks.
- Several new unit test cases written for the above changes

Please find the details of the work in CHANGES.branch-trunk-win.txt -
Common changes<http://bit.ly/Xe7Ynv>, HDFS changes<http://bit.ly/13QOSo9>,
and YARN and MapReduce changes <http://bit.ly/128zzMt>. This is the work
ported from branch-1-win to a branch based on trunk.

For details of the testing done, please see the thread -
http://bit.ly/WpavJ4. Merge patch for this is available on HADOOP-8562<
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-8562>.

This was a large undertaking that involved developing code, testing the
entire Hadoop stack, including scale tests. This is made possible only
with the contribution from many many folks in the community. Following
people contributed to this work: Ivan Mitic, Chuan Liu, Ramya Sunil, Bikas
Saha, Kanna Karanam, John Gordon, Brandon Li, Chris Nauroth, David Lao,
Sumadhur Reddy Bolli, Arpit Agarwal, Ahmed El Baz, Mike Liddell, Jing
Zhao, Thejas Nair, Steve Maine, Ganeshan Iyer, Raja Aluri, Giridharan
Kesavan, Ramya Bharathi Nimmagadda, Daryn Sharp, Arun Murthy, Tsz-Wo
Nicholas Sze, Suresh Srinivas and Sanjay Radia. There are many others who
contributed as well providing feedback and comments on numerous jiras.

The vote will run for seven days and will end on March 5, 6:00PM PST.

Regards,
Suresh
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Mahadevan Venkatraman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> It is super exciting to look at the prospect of these changes being
> merged to trunk. Having Windows as one of the supported Hadoop
> platforms is a fantastic opportunity both for the Hadoop project and
Microsoft customers.
>
> This work began around a year back when a few of us started with a
releases.
data challenges.
branch-1.
http://hortonworks.com/download/

-1
We should have a CI infrastructure in place before we can commit to
supporting Windows platform.

Eric is right Win/Cygwin was supported since day one.
I had a Windows box under my desk running nightly builds back in 2006-07.
People were irritated but I was filing windows bugs until 0.22 release.
Times changing and I am glad to see wider support for Win platform.

But in order to make it work you guys need to put the CI process in place

1. windows jenkins build: could be nightly or PreCommit.
- Nightly would mean that changes can be committed to trunk based on
linux PreCommit build. And people will file bugs if the change broke
Windows nightly build.
- PreCommit-win build will mean automatic reporting failed tests to
respective jira blocking commits the same way as it is now with linux
PreCommit builds.
We should discuss which way is more efficient for developers.

2. On-demand-windows Jenkins build.
I see it as a build to which I can attach my patch and the build will
run my changes on a dedicated windows box.
That way people can test their changes without having personal windows nodes.

I think this is the minimal set of requirement for us to be able to
commit to the new platform.
Right now I see only one windows related build
https://builds.apache.org/view/Hadoop/job/Hadoop-1-win/
Which was failing since Sept 8, 2012 and did not run in the last month.

Thanks,
--Konst

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Eric Baldeschwieler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> A few of observations:
>
> - Windows has actually been a supported platform for Hadoop since 0.1 .  Doug championed supporting windows then and we've continued to do it with varying vigor over time.  To my knowledge we've never made a decision to drop windows support.  The change here is improving our support and dropping the requirement of cigwin.  We had Nutch windows users on the list in 2006 and we've been supporting windows FS requirements since inception.
>
> - A little pragmatism will go a long way.  As a community we've got to stay committed to keeping hadoop simple (so it does work on many platforms) and extending it to take advantage of key emerging OS/hardware features, such as containers, new FSs, virtualization, flash ...  We should all plan to let new features & optimizations emerge that don't work everywhere, if they are compelling and central to hadoop's mission of being THE best fabric for storing and processing big data.
>
> - A UI project like KDE has to deal with the MANY differences between windows and linux UI APIs.  Hadoop faces no such complex challenge and hence can be maintained from a single codeline IMO.  It is mostly abstracted from the OS APIs via Java and our design choices.  Where it is not we can continue to add plugable abstractions.
>

Konstantin-

There's no debate on the necessity of CI and related infrastructure to
support the platform well. Suresh outlined the support to effect this
here: http://s.apache.org/s1

Is the commitment to establish this infrastructure after the merge
sufficient? -C

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -1
> We should have a CI infrastructure in place before we can commit to
> supporting Windows platform.
>
> Eric is right Win/Cygwin was supported since day one.
> I had a Windows box under my desk running nightly builds back in 2006-07.
> People were irritated but I was filing windows bugs until 0.22 release.
> Times changing and I am glad to see wider support for Win platform.
>
> But in order to make it work you guys need to put the CI process in place
>
> 1. windows jenkins build: could be nightly or PreCommit.
> - Nightly would mean that changes can be committed to trunk based on
> linux PreCommit build. And people will file bugs if the change broke
> Windows nightly build.
> - PreCommit-win build will mean automatic reporting failed tests to
> respective jira blocking commits the same way as it is now with linux
> PreCommit builds.
> We should discuss which way is more efficient for developers.
>
> 2. On-demand-windows Jenkins build.
> I see it as a build to which I can attach my patch and the build will
> run my changes on a dedicated windows box.
> That way people can test their changes without having personal windows nodes.
>
> I think this is the minimal set of requirement for us to be able to
> commit to the new platform.
> Right now I see only one windows related build
> https://builds.apache.org/view/Hadoop/job/Hadoop-1-win/
> Which was failing since Sept 8, 2012 and did not run in the last month.
>
> Thanks,
> --Konst
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Eric Baldeschwieler
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> +1 (non-binding)
>>
>> A few of observations:
>>
>> - Windows has actually been a supported platform for Hadoop since 0.1 .  Doug championed supporting windows then and we've continued to do it with varying vigor over time.  To my knowledge we've never made a decision to drop windows support.  The change here is improving our support and dropping the requirement of cigwin.  We had Nutch windows users on the list in 2006 and we've been supporting windows FS requirements since inception.
>>
>> - A little pragmatism will go a long way.  As a community we've got to stay committed to keeping hadoop simple (so it does work on many platforms) and extending it to take advantage of key emerging OS/hardware features, such as containers, new FSs, virtualization, flash ...  We should all plan to let new features & optimizations emerge that don't work everywhere, if they are compelling and central to hadoop's mission of being THE best fabric for storing and processing big data.
>>
>> - A UI project like KDE has to deal with the MANY differences between windows and linux UI APIs.  Hadoop faces no such complex challenge and hence can be maintained from a single codeline IMO.  It is mostly abstracted from the OS APIs via Java and our design choices.  Where it is not we can continue to add plugable abstractions.
>>

Commitment is a good thing.
I think the two builds that I proposed are a prerequisite for Win support.
If we commit windows patch people will start breaking it the next day.
Which we wont know without the nightly build and wont be able to fix
without the on-demand one.

Making two builds is less than 2 days work, imho, given that there is
a Windows node available and that mvn targets are in place. Correct me
if I missed any complications in the process.

Thanks,
--Konst

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Chris Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Konstantin-
>
> There's no debate on the necessity of CI and related infrastructure to
> support the platform well. Suresh outlined the support to effect this
> here: http://s.apache.org/s1
>
> Is the commitment to establish this infrastructure after the merge
> sufficient? -C
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> -1
>> We should have a CI infrastructure in place before we can commit to
>> supporting Windows platform.
>>
>> Eric is right Win/Cygwin was supported since day one.
>> I had a Windows box under my desk running nightly builds back in 2006-07.
>> People were irritated but I was filing windows bugs until 0.22 release.
>> Times changing and I am glad to see wider support for Win platform.
>>
>> But in order to make it work you guys need to put the CI process in place
>>
>> 1. windows jenkins build: could be nightly or PreCommit.
>> - Nightly would mean that changes can be committed to trunk based on
>> linux PreCommit build. And people will file bugs if the change broke
>> Windows nightly build.
>> - PreCommit-win build will mean automatic reporting failed tests to
>> respective jira blocking commits the same way as it is now with linux
>> PreCommit builds.
>> We should discuss which way is more efficient for developers.
>>
>> 2. On-demand-windows Jenkins build.
>> I see it as a build to which I can attach my patch and the build will
>> run my changes on a dedicated windows box.
>> That way people can test their changes without having personal windows nodes.
>>
>> I think this is the minimal set of requirement for us to be able to
>> commit to the new platform.
>> Right now I see only one windows related build
>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Hadoop/job/Hadoop-1-win/
>> Which was failing since Sept 8, 2012 and did not run in the last month.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --Konst
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Eric Baldeschwieler
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>
>>> A few of observations:
>>>
>>> - Windows has actually been a supported platform for Hadoop since 0.1 .  Doug championed supporting windows then and we've continued to do it with varying vigor over time.  To my knowledge we've never made a decision to drop windows support.  The change here is improving our support and dropping the requirement of cigwin.  We had Nutch windows users on the list in 2006 and we've been supporting windows FS requirements since inception.
>>>
>>> - A little pragmatism will go a long way.  As a community we've got to stay committed to keeping hadoop simple (so it does work on many platforms) and extending it to take advantage of key emerging OS/hardware features, such as containers, new FSs, virtualization, flash ...  We should all plan to let new features & optimizations emerge that don't work everywhere, if they are compelling and central to hadoop's mission of being THE best fabric for storing and processing big data.
>>>
>>> - A UI project like KDE has to deal with the MANY differences between windows and linux UI APIs.  Hadoop faces no such complex challenge and hence can be maintained from a single codeline IMO.  It is mostly abstracted from the OS APIs via Java and our design choices.  Where it is not we can continue to add plugable abstractions.
>>>

It seems that with the HW in place, the matter of setting at least nightly
build is trivial for anyone with up to date Windows knowledge. I wish I could
help. Going without a validation is a recipe for a disaster IMO.

-1 until some reasonable solution is implemented.
  Cos

On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 01:57PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
> Commitment is a good thing.
> I think the two builds that I proposed are a prerequisite for Win support.
> If we commit windows patch people will start breaking it the next day.
> Which we wont know without the nightly build and wont be able to fix
> without the on-demand one.
>
> Making two builds is less than 2 days work, imho, given that there is
> a Windows node available and that mvn targets are in place. Correct me
> if I missed any complications in the process.
>
> Thanks,
> --Konst
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Chris Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Konstantin-
> >
> > There's no debate on the necessity of CI and related infrastructure to
> > support the platform well. Suresh outlined the support to effect this
> > here: http://s.apache.org/s1
> >
> > Is the commitment to establish this infrastructure after the merge
> > sufficient? -C
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> -1
> >> We should have a CI infrastructure in place before we can commit to
> >> supporting Windows platform.
> >>
> >> Eric is right Win/Cygwin was supported since day one.
> >> I had a Windows box under my desk running nightly builds back in 2006-07.
> >> People were irritated but I was filing windows bugs until 0.22 release.
> >> Times changing and I am glad to see wider support for Win platform.
> >>
> >> But in order to make it work you guys need to put the CI process in place
> >>
> >> 1. windows jenkins build: could be nightly or PreCommit.
> >> - Nightly would mean that changes can be committed to trunk based on
> >> linux PreCommit build. And people will file bugs if the change broke
> >> Windows nightly build.
> >> - PreCommit-win build will mean automatic reporting failed tests to
> >> respective jira blocking commits the same way as it is now with linux
> >> PreCommit builds.
> >> We should discuss which way is more efficient for developers.
> >>
> >> 2. On-demand-windows Jenkins build.
> >> I see it as a build to which I can attach my patch and the build will
> >> run my changes on a dedicated windows box.
> >> That way people can test their changes without having personal windows nodes.
> >>
> >> I think this is the minimal set of requirement for us to be able to
> >> commit to the new platform.
> >> Right now I see only one windows related build
> >> https://builds.apache.org/view/Hadoop/job/Hadoop-1-win/
> >> Which was failing since Sept 8, 2012 and did not run in the last month.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> --Konst
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Eric Baldeschwieler
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> +1 (non-binding)
> >>>
> >>> A few of observations:
> >>>
> >>> - Windows has actually been a supported platform for Hadoop since 0.1 .  Doug championed supporting windows then and we've continued to do it with varying vigor over time.  To my knowledge we've never made a decision to drop windows support.  The change here is improving our support and dropping the requirement of cigwin.  We had Nutch windows users on the list in 2006 and we've been supporting windows FS requirements since inception.
> >>>
> >>> - A little pragmatism will go a long way.  As a community we've got to stay committed to keeping hadoop simple (so it does work on many platforms) and extending it to take advantage of key emerging OS/hardware features, such as containers, new FSs, virtualization, flash ...  We should all plan to let new features & optimizations emerge that don't work everywhere, if they are compelling and central to hadoop's mission of being THE best fabric for storing and processing big data.
> >>>
> >>> - A UI project like KDE has to deal with the MANY differences between windows and linux UI APIs.  Hadoop faces no such complex challenge and hence can be maintained from a single codeline IMO.  It is mostly abstracted from the OS APIs via Java and our design choices.  Where it is not we can continue to add plugable abstractions.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Commitment is a good thing.
> I think the two builds that I proposed are a prerequisite for Win support.
> If we commit windows patch people will start breaking it the next day.
> Which we wont know without the nightly build and wont be able to fix
> without the on-demand one.

As several people have pointed out already, the surface of possible
conflicts is relatively limited, and- as you did in 2007- the devs on
Windows will report and fix bugs in that platform as they find them.
CI is important for detecting and preventing bugs, but this isn't
software we're launching into orbit.

> Making two builds is less than 2 days work, imho, given that there is
> a Windows node available and that mvn targets are in place. Correct me
> if I missed any complications in the process.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that with the HW in place, the matter of setting at least nightly
> build is trivial for anyone with up to date Windows knowledge. I wish I could
> help. Going without a validation is a recipe for a disaster IMO.

Fair enough, though that also implies that the window for regressions
is small, and it leaves little room to doubt that this will receive
priority. Until it's merged, spurious notifications that the current
trunk breaks Windows are an awkward introduction to devs' workflow.
The order of merge/CI is a choice between mild annoyances, really.

But it might be moot. Giri: you're doing the work on this. When do you
think it can be complete? -C

> It seems that with the HW in place, the matter of setting at least nightly
> build is trivial for anyone with up to date Windows knowledge. I wish I
> could
> help. Going without a validation is a recipe for a disaster IMO.
>
> -1 until some reasonable solution is implemented.
>   Cos
Cos, I have hard time understanding your veto?

Here is my rationale for merge:
Currently with all the cross platform support, the merge patch has +1 from
Jenkins on Linux. So no regression has been introduced in Hadoop on Linux.

As regards to Windows support I want to make two points:
1. Until Jenkins is setup and we are passing all the tests, I am okay, as
Konstntin proposed, if we do not officially declare Windows as supported. I
do not want to tie the patch merge with setting up Windows Jenkins. I have
been maintaining this branch for a long time and keeping it in sync with
trunk is non-trivial.
2. After Jenkins is setup, there is a concern in the community about -1
from Windows hindering patch commits. As others have already suggested in
the thread, I am okay committing new patches even if -1 is posted by
Jenkins on Windows. The team that worked on Windows will fix the issues. I
do not see many such issues cropping up.

Sanjay,

This is really confusing now.
Does Hadoop intend to support Windows by committing this patch?
If not, when the declaration of the "official" support comes in and
what does it mean?
Committing a 500K patch just to make things "not worth" doesn't make
sense to me.
If the support for this is planned to be the same as today's for
cygwin then what's the point?

I thought it was a simple thing to ask: create a nightly build on
Jenkins and then
duplicate it with additional parameter a patch file.
If you have an internal build system how hard is it to push it to
Apache Jenkins.
Who is the volunteer for this work, please speak up when it can be done.

Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:03 PM, sanjay Radia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 1, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
>
>> Commitment is a good thing.
>> I think the two builds that I proposed are a prerequisite for Win support.
>> If we commit windows patch people will start breaking it the next day.
>> Which we wont know without the nightly build and wont be able to fix
>> without the on-demand one.
>
> They clearly are a prerequisite for declaring "official" support for windows.
> But they should not be a prerequisite for the merge,.
> Currently we enable windows through cygwin. There is no jenkins. Folks have been  fixing  windows issues as they are discovered.
> Merging the branch makes the situation no worse than it is today - all tests pass on Linux, there is no regression.
> Merging now removes  the cygwin dependency.
>
> Jenkins is critical to make windows officially supported platform without cygwin.
> When Jenkins is enabled, the team that has worked on this branch will have to fix any bugs that have arisen in the mean time.
>
> sanjay
>
>
>
>

Suresh, I appreciate all the troubles you're going through wrt syncing up the
huge patch for a long time - I really do.

I am not asking to have full test-patch process in place. But I think it is a
real good idea to have a way to run the full test suite once in a while - or
as Konstantin proposing - for a given patch, to make sure that codebase
doesn't bitrot at the edges.

"Official" support has nothing to do with the issue - you're trying to build a
straw man argument around this. What is relevant, on the other hand, is that
Windows is so different from _any_ Unix or pseudo-Unix flavors, including
Windows with Cygwin - that even multi-platform Java has hard hard time
dealing with it. This is enough, IMO, to warrant a separate checkpoint.

I hope I have explained myself better.
  Cos

On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 05:55PM, Suresh Srinivas wrote:
> > It seems that with the HW in place, the matter of setting at least nightly
> > build is trivial for anyone with up to date Windows knowledge. I wish I
> > could
> > help. Going without a validation is a recipe for a disaster IMO.
> >
> > -1 until some reasonable solution is implemented.
> >   Cos
>
>
> Cos, I have hard time understanding your veto?
>
> Here is my rationale for merge:
> Currently with all the cross platform support, the merge patch has +1 from
> Jenkins on Linux. So no regression has been introduced in Hadoop on Linux.
>
> As regards to Windows support I want to make two points:
> 1. Until Jenkins is setup and we are passing all the tests, I am okay, as
> Konstntin proposed, if we do not officially declare Windows as supported. I
> do not want to tie the patch merge with setting up Windows Jenkins. I have
> been maintaining this branch for a long time and keeping it in sync with
> trunk is non-trivial.
> 2. After Jenkins is setup, there is a concern in the community about -1
> from Windows hindering patch commits. As others have already suggested in
> the thread, I am okay committing new patches even if -1 is posted by
> Jenkins on Windows. The team that worked on Windows will fix the issues. I
> do not see many such issues cropping up.

Konstantin,
I would like to explore what it would take to remove this perceived
impediment -- although I reserve the right to argue that this is not
pre-requisite to merging the cross-platform support patch.

If we implemented full "test-patch" support for Windows on trunk, would
that fulfill both your items #1 and #2?  Please note that:
a) Pushing the "Patch Available" button in Jira shall cause a pre-commit
build to start within, I believe, 20 minutes.
b) That build keeps logs for both java build and unit tests for several
days, that are accessible to all viewers.

So, does this provide sufficient on-demand support that we don't have to
implement a whole new on-demand VM support structure of some sort for #2
(which would be an extraordinary and impractical demand)?

Thanks,
--Matt
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> -1
> We should have a CI infrastructure in place before we can commit to
> supporting Windows platform.
>
> Eric is right Win/Cygwin was supported since day one.
> I had a Windows box under my desk running nightly builds back in 2006-07.
> People were irritated but I was filing windows bugs until 0.22 release.
> Times changing and I am glad to see wider support for Win platform.
>
> But in order to make it work you guys need to put the CI process in place
>
> 1. windows jenkins build: could be nightly or PreCommit.
> - Nightly would mean that changes can be committed to trunk based on
> linux PreCommit build. And people will file bugs if the change broke
> Windows nightly build.
> - PreCommit-win build will mean automatic reporting failed tests to
> respective jira blocking commits the same way as it is now with linux
> PreCommit builds.
> We should discuss which way is more efficient for developers.
>
> 2. On-demand-windows Jenkins build.
> I see it as a build to which I can attach my patch and the build will
> run my changes on a dedicated windows box.
> That way people can test their changes without having personal windows
> nodes.
>
> I think this is the minimal set of requirement for us to be able to
> commit to the new platform.
> Right now I see only one windows related build
> https://builds.apache.org/view/Hadoop/job/Hadoop-1-win/
> Which was failing since Sept 8, 2012 and did not run in the last month.
>
> Thanks,
> --Konst
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Eric Baldeschwieler
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > A few of observations:
> >
> > - Windows has actually been a supported platform for Hadoop since 0.1 .
>  Doug championed supporting windows then and we've continued to do it with
> varying vigor over time.  To my knowledge we've never made a decision to
> drop windows support.  The change here is improving our support and
> dropping the requirement of cigwin.  We had Nutch windows users on the list
> in 2006 and we've been supporting windows FS requirements since inception.
> >
> > - A little pragmatism will go a long way.  As a community we've got to
> stay committed to keeping hadoop simple (so it does work on many platforms)
> and extending it to take advantage of key emerging OS/hardware features,
> such as containers, new FSs, virtualization, flash ...  We should all plan
> to let new features & optimizations emerge that don't work everywhere, if
> they are compelling and central to hadoop's mission of being THE best
> fabric for storing and processing big data.
> >
> > - A UI project like KDE has to deal with the MANY differences between
> windows and linux UI APIs.  Hadoop faces no such complex challenge and
> hence can be maintained from a single codeline IMO.  It is mostly
> abstracted from the OS APIs via Java and our design choices.  Where it is
> not we can continue to add plugable abstractions.
> >
>

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
> pre-requisite to merging the cross-platform support patch.

It's your right indeed. So as mine to question what the platform
support means for you, which I believe remained unclear.
I do not impede the change as you should have noticed. My requirement
comes from my perception of the support, which means to me exactly two
things:
1. The ability to recognise the code is broken for the platform
2. The ability to test new patches on the platform
The latter is problematic, as many noticed in this thread, for those
whose customary environment does not include Windows.

> If we implemented full "test-patch" support for Windows on trunk, would that
> fulfill both your items #1 and #2?  Please note that:
> a) Pushing the "Patch Available" button in Jira shall cause a pre-commit
> build to start within, I believe, 20 minutes.
> b) That build keeps logs for both java build and unit tests for several
> days, that are accessible to all viewers.

In item #1 I mostly asking for the nightly build, which is simpler
than "test-patch". The latter would be ideal from the platform support
viewpoint, but it is for the community to decide if we want to add
extra +3 hours to the build.
Nightly build in my understanding is triggered by the timer rather
than by Jira's "submit patch" button.  On Jenkins build configuration
you can specify it under "Build periodically".

> So, does this provide sufficient on-demand support that we don't have to
> implement a whole new on-demand VM support structure of some sort for #2
> (which would be an extraordinary and impractical demand)?

I did not mention VMs. Item #2 means a build, which runs "test-patch"
target with the file specified by a user (instead of a jira
attachment).
When user clicks "Build Now" link a box is displayed where the user
can enter the file path containing the patch. This can be specified in
the Build Configuration under "This build is parameterized" by
choosing AddParameter / FileParameter. The build can run on the same
Windows machine as the nightly build.
Such build will let people test their patches for Windows on Jenkins
if they don't posses a license for the right version of Windows.
I hope this will not turn into extraordinary or impractical effort.

Thanks,
--Konst

> Thanks,
> --Matt
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> -1
>> We should have a CI infrastructure in place before we can commit to
>> supporting Windows platform.
>>
>> Eric is right Win/Cygwin was supported since day one.
>> I had a Windows box under my desk running nightly builds back in 2006-07.
>> People were irritated but I was filing windows bugs until 0.22 release.
>> Times changing and I am glad to see wider support for Win platform.
>>
>> But in order to make it work you guys need to put the CI process in place
>>
>> 1. windows jenkins build: could be nightly or PreCommit.
>> - Nightly would mean that changes can be committed to trunk based on
>> linux PreCommit build. And people will file bugs if the change broke
>> Windows nightly build.
>> - PreCommit-win build will mean automatic reporting failed tests to
>> respective jira blocking commits the same way as it is now with linux
>> PreCommit builds.
>> We should discuss which way is more efficient for developers.
>>
>> 2. On-demand-windows Jenkins build.
>> I see it as a build to which I can attach my patch and the build will
>> run my changes on a dedicated windows box.
>> That way people can test their changes without having personal windows
>> nodes.
>>
>> I think this is the minimal set of requirement for us to be able to
>> commit to the new platform.
>> Right now I see only one windows related build
>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Hadoop/job/Hadoop-1-win/

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
> > pre-requisite to merging the cross-platform support patch.
>
> It's your right indeed. So as mine to question what the platform
> support means for you, which I believe remained unclear.
> I do not impede the change as you should have noticed. My requirement
> comes from my perception of the support, which means to me exactly two
> things:
> 1. The ability to recognise the code is broken for the platform
> 2. The ability to test new patches on the platform
> The latter is problematic, as many noticed in this thread, for those
> whose customary environment does not include Windows.
>
> > If we implemented full "test-patch" support for Windows on trunk, would
> that
> > fulfill both your items #1 and #2?  Please note that:
> > a) Pushing the "Patch Available" button in Jira shall cause a pre-commit
> > build to start within, I believe, 20 minutes.
> > b) That build keeps logs for both java build and unit tests for several
> > days, that are accessible to all viewers.
>
> In item #1 I mostly asking for the nightly build, which is simpler
> than "test-patch". The latter would be ideal from the platform support
> viewpoint, but it is for the community to decide if we want to add
> extra +3 hours to the build.
> Nightly build in my understanding is triggered by the timer rather
> than by Jira's "submit patch" button.  On Jenkins build configuration
> you can specify it under "Build periodically".
>
> > So, does this provide sufficient on-demand support that we don't have to
> > implement a whole new on-demand VM support structure of some sort for #2
> > (which would be an extraordinary and impractical demand)?
>
> I did not mention VMs. Item #2 means a build, which runs "test-patch"
> target with the file specified by a user (instead of a jira
> attachment).
> When user clicks "Build Now" link a box is displayed where the user
> can enter the file path containing the patch. This can be specified in
> the Build Configuration under "This build is parameterized" by
> choosing AddParameter / FileParameter. The build can run on the same
> Windows machine as the nightly build.
> Such build will let people test their patches for Windows on Jenkins
> if they don't posses a license for the right version of Windows.
> I hope this will not turn into extraordinary or impractical effort.
>
> Thanks,
> --Konst
>
> > Thanks,
> > --Matt
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Konstantin Shvachko <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> -1
> >> We should have a CI infrastructure in place before we can commit to
> >> supporting Windows platform.
> >>
> >> Eric is right Win/Cygwin was supported since day one.
> >> I had a Windows box under my desk running nightly builds back in
> 2006-07.
> >> People were irritated but I was filing windows bugs until 0.22 release.
> >> Times changing and I am glad to see wider support for Win platform.
> >>
> >> But in order to make it work you guys need to put the CI process in
> place
> >>
> >> 1. windows jenkins build: could be nightly or PreCommit.
> >> - Nightly would mean that changes can be committed to trunk based on

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
>> > pre-requisite to merging the cross-platform support patch.
>>
>> It's your right indeed. So as mine to question what the platform
>> support means for you, which I believe remained unclear.
>> I do not impede the change as you should have noticed. My requirement
>> comes from my perception of the support, which means to me exactly two
>> things:
>> 1. The ability to recognise the code is broken for the platform
>> 2. The ability to test new patches on the platform
>> The latter is problematic, as many noticed in this thread, for those
>> whose customary environment does not include Windows.
>>
>> > If we implemented full "test-patch" support for Windows on trunk, would
>> > that
>> > fulfill both your items #1 and #2?  Please note that:
>> > a) Pushing the "Patch Available" button in Jira shall cause a pre-commit
>> > build to start within, I believe, 20 minutes.
>> > b) That build keeps logs for both java build and unit tests for several
>> > days, that are accessible to all viewers.
>>
>> In item #1 I mostly asking for the nightly build, which is simpler
>> than "test-patch". The latter would be ideal from the platform support
>> viewpoint, but it is for the community to decide if we want to add
>> extra +3 hours to the build.
>> Nightly build in my understanding is triggered by the timer rather
>> than by Jira's "submit patch" button.  On Jenkins build configuration
>> you can specify it under "Build periodically".
>>
>> > So, does this provide sufficient on-demand support that we don't have to
>> > implement a whole new on-demand VM support structure of some sort for #2
>> > (which would be an extraordinary and impractical demand)?
>>
>> I did not mention VMs. Item #2 means a build, which runs "test-patch"
>> target with the file specified by a user (instead of a jira
>> attachment).
>> When user clicks "Build Now" link a box is displayed where the user
>> can enter the file path containing the patch. This can be specified in
>> the Build Configuration under "This build is parameterized" by
>> choosing AddParameter / FileParameter. The build can run on the same
>> Windows machine as the nightly build.
>> Such build will let people test their patches for Windows on Jenkins
>> if they don't posses a license for the right version of Windows.
>> I hope this will not turn into extraordinary or impractical effort.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --Konst
>>
>> > Thanks,
>> > --Matt
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> -1
>> >> We should have a CI infrastructure in place before we can commit to
>> >> supporting Windows platform.
>> >>
>> >> Eric is right Win/Cygwin was supported since day one.
>> >> I had a Windows box under my desk running nightly builds back in
>> >> 2006-07.
>> >> People were irritated but I was filing windows bugs until 0.22 release.
>> >> Times changing and I am glad to see wider support for Win platform.

Thank you all for voting and participating in the discussions.

With 11 +1s from committers (more than the required 3 +1s from
active committers per the Hadoop bylaws), 1 +0, 8 +1s from other
contributors, and no -1s the merge vote passes.

I have committed the consolidated patch from branch-trunk-win
to trunk. People who are interested in following up on the progress
related to Jenkins setup for Windows and other work that came up
during the discussion, please watch:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9359

Regards,
Suresh
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Matt Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
> 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 <

http://hortonworks.com/download/

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
> 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

Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

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
> 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

http://hortonworks.com/download/