On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Jesse Yates <[email protected]>wrote:
> Something like a -P jenkins? It would also put source control on how we run > the test/build CI. > > Happy do put up a quick patch, if people are interested. > Yes, please! A corresponding update to the docbook would be excellent as well ;) -n On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 4:34 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I feel that would be overkill. Test suite runs for a long time. > Personally > > I hate to run them locally and have my machine taken over for an hour. > > > > If is passed HadoopQA in trunk and a few relevant tests in 0.94 were run > > (if applicable) I think that is good enough. > > > > If it doesn't pass the 0.94 run we'll find out soon enough. If the test > > suite is stable that is :) > > > > > > The gatekeeper are the release tests, not HadoopQA... IMHO. > > > > > > -- Lars > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Ted Yu <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: lars hofhansl <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 4:28 PM > > Subject: Re: 0.94 tests back in shape and some guidelines > > > > Since we don't have Hadoop QA for 0.94 patches yet, does it make sense > for > > either contributor (patch owner) or the committer who plans to integrate > > the patch to present test suite result before integration ? > > > > There is subtle difference between 0.94 and trunk which may lead to > > unexpected results. > > > > Cheers > > > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I think it is not a matter of running the tests N times, but more so on > > > running different platforms. From our builds, what we see most often is > > > that the test runs just fine under CentOS 6, but becomes more flaky > under > > > CentOS 5 possibly b/c of thread scheduling differences. Moreover, under > > > windows, the threads are not immediately scheduled to run after start() > > > which causes further race conditions which does not occur so frequently > > > under *nix systems. > > > > > > For 0.94 QA, theoretically we should not this. However in practice I > see > > > that if there is a brave soul to work on it, we will find it useful. > > > > > > Enis > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 10:37 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > If we make it too onerous we'll see fewer contributions especially in > > the > > > > test area. :) > > > > > > > > > >
