Packaging everything together makes sense for unit/functional level of tests. Since Hadoop in current shape doesn't have any other kinds of tests (despite of limited system tests implemented within Herriot framework) there's no objections per se.
And you know my take on Hadoop's stack testing for it proved to be beneficial for Y! security release stabilization in particular: stack testing has to be done by a set of separate component specific testing artifacts tailored together for the particular stack's validation. But since we aren't anywhere near the noble goal (as correctly mentioned by Nigel et all) we don't need to make any changes in out "bits + functional tests" packaging schema. Thanks for clarification of your point, btw. Cos On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 22:33, Eric Baldeschwieler <[email protected]> wrote: > Nigel proposes that in this release (as in previous releases), everything > should be packaged together. > > Our in house experience at yahoo is that this makes a lot of sense. It is > how we find it most effective to operate. The project split has introduced a > lot of complexity with no return. > > Do you see any advantage to the status quo, versus nigel's proposal? > > Thanks! And sorry for any ambiguity. > > E14 > > > > On Jan 17, 2011, at 9:54 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 21:40, Eric Baldeschwieler <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Jan 17, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Nigel Daley wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 14, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze wrote: >>>>> >>> ... >>>>> Why do we want to enforce the releases as a unit, given that the long term >>>>> target is to release these 3 projects independently? >>>> >>>> Because that long term view is currently a fantasy with no real end in >>>> sight. >>> >>> ** +1 to that. We release as a unit, branch as a unit, test as a unit, >>> deploy as a unit. I've seen no actual gain from the project split, just >>> complexity. >> >> Am I missing something in the latest development of Hadoop, Eric? What >> do you mean by 'we... test as a unit'? Is it like we have test >> artifacts version'd against Hadoop release proper? Or you are trying >> to say something else? It isn't very clear, sorry... >> >> Cos >> >> >>>> Nige >>>> >>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: Nigel Daley <[email protected]> >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 11:21:25 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Move project split down a level >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 14, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Tsz Wo (Nicholas), Sze wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Nigel, >>>>>> >>>>>>> As I look more at the impact of the common/MR/HDFS project split on what >>>>>>> and how we release Hadoop, I feel like the split needs an adjustment. >>>>>>> Many >>>>>>> folks I've talked to agree that the project split has caused us a >>>>>>> splitting >>>>>>> headache. I think 1 relatively small change could alleviate some of >>>>>>> that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Could you elaborate your idea on how the proposed changes would help? >>>>>> What the >>>>>> >>>>>> problems are being addressed? It is not clear to me. >>>>> >>>>> Critical in my mind was my statement: "We're a long way from releasing >>>>> these 3 >>>>> projects independently. Given that, they should be branched and released >>>>> as a >>>>> unit." This can not be enforced given the current svn layout. Other's >>>>> can weigh >>>>> in with additional thoughts. >>>>> >>>>>> You are right that the change is small but the impact is huge. We >>>>>> should first >>>>>> >>>>>> understand what we are getting from the changes before doing it. >>>>> >>>>> What do you see as the huge impact? >>>>> >>>>> Nige >>>> >>> >>> > >
