RE the CI/e2e, we should see if we can't get the e2e tests running on a CI
server.

2012/3/27 Jonathan Coveney <[email protected]>

> Bill,
>
> Thanks for going through those tickets. I marked them all as 0.10/0.11...
> 2616 seems like the only critical one, and the others are nice to haves (I
> imagine 2587and 2574 won't be super critical until we build out the systems
> that rely on them). All of them look pretty close so I'd have no problem
> with that.
>
> Hopefully tomorrow others can weigh in on their priorities. Then we can
> label things, work to finish them, and roll the RC.
>
> 2012/3/26 Daniel Dai <[email protected]>
>
>> Yes, but CI anyway only run unit tests, we will have to run e2e test
>> by ourselves.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Jonathan Coveney <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > Perhaps a big initiative for 0.11 could be to get the builds to the
>> point
>> > where flaky tests don't essentially gut the usefulness of the CI server
>> > (Pig 0.9 hasn't passed in 6 months, etc). I'm not sure how difficult
>> that
>> > would be though, and what the benefit would be. But it's pretty
>> annoying to
>> > be able to wrap up a release when there are a bunch of "known useless"
>> > tests.
>> >
>> > 2012/3/26 Daniel Dai <[email protected]>
>> >
>> >> Once PIG-2317 check in, only document patch (PIG-2601) and some of
>> >> Russell's patches left. Before roll up RC, we need to make sure all
>> >> unit tests and e2e tests pass, I can help with this.
>> >>
>> >> Daniel
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Jonathan Coveney <[email protected]
>> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > It's time to get serious about rolling an RC. 0.10 seems pretty
>> strong...
>> >> > are there any pressing JIRAs that people want to try and get in?
>> Looking
>> >> at
>> >> > the open JIRAs with a fix labeled of 0.10 (which is admittedly
>> possibly
>> >> > incomplete), it looks like there isn't anything terribly seriously
>> >> left...
>> >> > I'd love to get the ball rolling on an RC so we can test it and
>> identify
>> >> > any bugs.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thoughts?
>> >>
>>
>
>

Reply via email to