Agree, try anything to get our blues back. We add back the //ism after all settles.
Do you think something has changed in INFRA Andy? Is it more contended? Or, more likely, is it that we've been committing stuff that has destabilized builds? We had a good streak of blue there for a while. It just took some work fixing breakage and watching jenkins to make sure breakage didn't sneak in, but we've lapsed for sure. St.Ack On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Dima Spivak <[email protected]> wrote: > Not running tests in parallel will definitely cut down on Surefire > flakiness (and in contention that sometimes leads to false failures in > resource-hungry tests), but it will probably also balloon test run times to > about two hours. Probably worth it in the short term, but we > eventually need to do something about some of these heavy tests. > > -Dima > > On Friday, January 16, 2015, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > You might have missed the larger issue Ted. > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 2015, at 4:48 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > > > > With HBASE-12874, we should get a green build for branch-1.0 > > > > > > FYI > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected] > > <javascript:;>> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> See BUILDS-49 tracking issues specifically with 0.98 jobs, but I just > > >> noticed trunk, branch-1, and branch-1.0 all failed after I checked in > a > > >> shell doc fix due to a timeout or fork failure. > > >> > > >> I propose we update all Jenkins jobs to not run tests in parallel, > i.e. > > add > > >> "-Dsurefire.firstPartForkCount=1 -Dsurefire.secondPartForkCount=1" > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> - Andy > > >> > > >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > Hein > > >> (via Tom White) > > >> > > >
