Many thanks to Ted Yu, Steve Loughran and Andrew Wang for replying in the jira and Steve/Andrew for making the related changes!
--Yongjun On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Yongjun Zhang <yzh...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I wonder if anyone can help on resolving HADOOP-11320 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-11320> to increase timeout > for jenkins test of crossing-subproject patches? > > Thanks a lot, > > --Yongjun > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Yongjun Zhang <yzh...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Thank you all for the input. >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-11320 >> >> was created for this issue. Welcome to give your further comments there. >> >> Best, >> >> --Yongjun >> >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@alumni.cmu.edu> >> wrote: >> >>> +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. >>> > > >>> > >>> >> >> >
