Agreed, patch testing is a great feature to be used as much as possible! On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote:
> With help from Giri, we have patch testing for TRUNK. > I think all patches for TRUNK (0.92 included in the near future since > they're quite close) should go through HadoopQA, i.e. patch testing. > > The rationale is that contributor may not have hardware + OS (Ubuntu) > combination that Jenkins uses. > Certain timing related issues would be exposed on Jenkins, as previous > incidents have shown. > > For patches targeting 0.90.x, we rely on contributor/committer to run test > suite. > > Cheers > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:53 AM, N Keywal <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 2) HBASE-4737 is for the split; as discussed two weeks ago. There is > a > > > > split proposal. I will apply this split this week-end or monday, > don't > > > > hesitate to provide a feedback before (or after if necessary :-). I > > > tested > > > > the parallelization within surefire for the small tests, it seems to > > work > > > > quite well. > > > > > > > > Don't forget that the idea is to run only small & medium on the > > developer > > > > machine by default. This will make the sub-tests-suite runs under 30 > > > > minutes, but the selection is important if we don't want to kill the > > > > pre-patch machine with defects that could have been detected before. > > > > > > > > > > You thinking patch-build should not run the full suite? > > > > > > > > I was thinking about the hbase-book, chapter "13.7 submitting patch". > Today > > it says; " Make sure unit tests pass locally before submitting the > patch.". > > It could become something as: "Make sure unit tests pass locally before > > submitting the patch. For large or risky patches, run as well the > > integration/large tests suite before submitting". > > >
