Great to hear about the progress on the test side, Nishidha! Looking forward to learning how the frontend unit tests and the functional tests do on POWER once you load the test data.
As unit tests are getting closer to passing, it would be good to think about the code review and merge strategy. Last time we talked about it you had trouble posting a preview patch to gerrit.cloudera.org. Let me know if you need help on this track. My suggestion is that even if you cannot post a review, it would probably be good to push your changes to a branch as soon as you're comfortable doing it. It would make it easier for all involved to understand the issues that you may run into (and be able to better help you in context), such as rebase complexity or functional test failures that may have been fixed on trunk recently. On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Nishidha Panpaliya <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Just an update on our current status on POWER - > > 1. *Backend test:* On POWER, out of 5 backend tests failures, we got 3 > failures fixed by upgrading LLVM to 3.8 and lz4 library. 1 failure in > llvm-codegen-test is due to gcc 5 incompatibility with clang 3.8, for which > LLVM community is already working on. And last failure is being debugged. > 2. *Frontend test: *On POWER, FE tests failures are still many (Total > Tests run: 546, Failures: 226, Errors: 77, Skipped: 3 ). Most of these > failures are due to test data not being generated and loaded correctly. > Test data shared by Cloudera community is also not working, for which > discussion is in progress. > 3. *Test data generation/loading: *On POWER, there are still errors > generating/loading test data. We've also setup Impala on x86 environment > and could successfully generate and load test data on it. So, now we'll try > using x86 data that we generated on POWER just to verify frontend tests. > > > Thank you for all your cooperation. > > Thanks, > Nishidha > > > [image: Inactive hide details for Silvius Rus ---04/20/2016 12:00:44 > PM---On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Nishidha Panpaliya <nishidha]Silvius > Rus ---04/20/2016 12:00:44 PM---On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Nishidha > Panpaliya <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Silvius Rus <[email protected]> > To: Nishidha Panpaliya/Austin/Contr/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: Sudarshan Jagadale/Austin/Contr/IBM@IBMUS, David > Clissold/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Valencia Serrao/Austin/Contr/IBM@IBMUS, Andrea > D Franklin/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Manish Patil/Austin/Contr/IBM@IBMUS, Zhi Zhi > NY Yang <[email protected]> > Date: 04/20/2016 12:00 PM > Subject: Re: Impala follow up > ------------------------------ > > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Nishidha Panpaliya <*[email protected]* > <[email protected]>> wrote: > > We are sorry that we cannot create gerrit code review as it will need > us to rebase again from cdh5-trunk and then again porting new code on > ppc64le. To avoid the loop of porting/rebuilding/testing/patch creation, > I've created a patch between our code and cdh5-trunk (Commit ID: > 00c1d6217cd2284fe81a442e288ba737e71ef99c) when we rebased last time. > > > > Thank you for the writeup, Nishidha. It's useful to see the changes > broken down. > > It would be painful to review the whole patch outside gerrit especially if > we iterate a few times as we would need to highlight just deltas from the > previous review. Have you considered starting a branch and applying your > changes on this branch as multiple commits? That way it would be easier to > stay close to cdh5-trunk by rebasing frequently. Also, we could review > your changes incrementally and we can set up continuous testing to make > sure that your branch stays green on x86 throughout your porting effort to > ppc64le and can be merged easily to the cdh5-trunk. I'm concerned that > with the current approach it would be very hard to merge back to cdh5-trunk > as your code is diverging. So even when you're "done", you'd be unable to > upgrade and it would be hard even to apply Impala maintenance patches. > > Let me discuss this with a few Cloudera developers to get more opinions on > how to do this right and with as little pain as possible. > >
