+1 for increasing the test timeout for tests spanning multiple sub-projects.
I can see the value in what Steve L. suggested... if you make a major change that touches a particular subproject, you should try to get the approval of a committer who knows that subproject. But I don't think that forcing artificial patch splits is the way to do this... There are also some patches that are completely mechanical and don't really require the involvement of YARN / HDFS committer, even if they change that project. For example, fixing a misspelling in the name of a hadoop-common API. Colin On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Yongjun Zhang <yzh...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Thanks all for the feedback. To summarize (and I have a suggestion at the > end of this email), there are two scenarios: > > 1. A change that span multiple *bigger* projects. r.g. hadoop, hbase. > 2. A change that span multiple *sub* projects* within hadoop, e.g., > common, hdfs, yarn > > For 1, it's required for the change to be backward compatible, thus > splitting change for multiple *bigger* projects is a must. > > For 2, there are two sub types, > > - 2.1 those changes that can be made within hadoop sub-projects, and > there is no external impact > - 2.2 those changes that have external impact, that is, the changes > involve adding new APIs and marking old API deprecated, and > corresponding > changes in other *bigger* projects will have to be made independently. > *But > the changes within hadoop subjects can still be done altogether.* > > I think (Please correct me if I'm wrong): > > - What Colin referred to is 2.1 and changes within hadoop sub-subjects > for 2.2; > - Steve's "not for changes across hadoop-common and hdfs, or > hadoop-common and yarn" means 2.1, Steve's "changes that only > span hdfs-and-yarn would be fairly doubtful too." implies his doubt of > existence of 2.1. > > For changes of 2.1 (if any) and *hadoop* changes of 2.2, we do have an > option of making the change across all hadoop sub-projects altogether, to > save the multiple steps Colin referred to. > > If this option is feasible, should we consider increasing the jenkins > timeout for this kind of changes (I mean making the timeout adjustable, if > it's for single sub-project, use the old timeout; otherwise, increase > accordingly) so that we have at least this option when needed? > > Thanks. > > --Yongjun > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:28 AM, Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com> > wrote: > > > On 25 November 2014 at 00:58, Bernd Eckenfels <e...@zusammenkunft.net> > > wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > Am Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:16:00 -0800 > > > schrieb Colin McCabe <cmcc...@alumni.cmu.edu>: > > > > > > > Conceptually, I think it's important to support patches that modify > > > > multiple sub-projects. Otherwise refactoring things in common > > > > becomes a multi-step process. > > > > > > This might be rather philosophical (and I dont want to argue the need > > > to have the patch infrastructure work for the multi-project case), > > > howevere if a multi-project change cannot be applied in multiple steps > > > it is probably also not safe at runtime (unless the multiple projects > > > belong to a single instance/artifact). And then beeing forced to > > > commit/compile/test in multiple steps actually increases the > > > dependencies topology. > > > > > > > +1 for changes that span, say hadoop and hbase. but not for changes > across > > hadoop-common and hdfs, or hadoop-common and yarn. changes that only span > > hdfs-and-yarn would be fairly doubtful too. > > > > there is a dependency graph in hadoop's own jars —and cross module (not > > cross project) changes do need to happen. > > > > -- > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity > to > > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > > received this communication in error, please contact the sender > immediately > > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > > >
