I feel like we shouldn't make PPC part of pre-commit at least initially - it's an unreasonable barrier if contributors/committers to debug issues on a platform they don't have easy access to. Having the testing infra is still important because we don't want to have code in there that will gradually bit-rot without us noticing.
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Silvius Rus <s...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Would it make sense to _not_ run PPC tests as part of presubmit? Instead > Valencia could set up nightly tests using in-house infrastructure. And > share the test results, e.g., by sending them to a new email list > te...@impala.incubator.apache.org (that we'd need to create) so everyone > can see when there are failures or if coverage stops for whatever reason. > GCC has been doing something like this for long, > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-04/. > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Jim Apple <jbap...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Locally, I work on native-toolchain using a VM configured with > > > Ubuntu16.04ppc64le, 4GB RAM and 50GB of HDD. If we provide you a VM > with > > > this config, will it be sufficient ? > > > > > > > What hypervisor/emulator will it use? > > > > What are the requirements of the host OS and host hardware? > > > > Why is the config you have it set to so important that you mention it in > > your email - will the config be locked down into that config or can it be > > reconfigured later? > > > > How is the VM controlled from the host OS? Keep in mind that a GUI cannot > > be the only option for automated tests. > > > > FWIW, Impala's test suite probably cannot fully complete without at least > > 8, and I suspect 16, GB of RAM, and we might need more disk space, too, > but > > these should be reconfigurable with most hypervisors/emulators. > > >
