Re: Supporting multiple JDKs
C* 2.2 > I'm still left wondering why we want to use CI resources to find bugs that the users will never encounter. How would we be sure users will never encounter bugs unless we build against that JDK? This is the reason I propose having a CircleCI build against 1.7. > If you take out "and optionally run UTs and Dtests against 1.7" from workflow1 then I'm fine with it. I don't think it hurts to have workflows that "can" do UTs and DTests against 1.7. We can run them only when we make a release. > The time it takes for tests to run is a headache, so to have to run dtests four times over makes me grimace. It takes only about 25min with default 4x parallelism to run unit tests in CircleCI. 4.0 > Currently afaik we can't build the artifacts against only either JDK8 or JDK11, hence the hybrid JDK setup. We definitely can build against JDK 8 alone, however from the thread you linked and from 9608, we wanted to do a stable release that uses JDK8, and an experimental release, which uses JDK8 to build most files, and JDK11 to build the Java 11 specific AtomicBTreePartitionBase file. > In that thread it was mentioned the concerns about the cost of running tests twice, and whether we should avoid running tests with JDK11 until we're closer to formally supporting JDK11 at run-time. My proposal is not to necessarily run UTs and DTests against JDK11 always with every commit but to have workflows in place that can be used whenever we deem necessary. Thanks, Sumanth On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:34 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > Hey Sumanth, > could you clear a few things up for me… > > > C* 2.2 > > > > I'm still a bit confused as to what's the benefit in compiling with > > > jdk1.7 and then testing with jdk1.7 or jdk1.8 > > > > I meant two separate workflows for each JDK i.e. > > Workflow1: Build against jdk1.7, and optionally run UTs and Dtests > against > > 1.7 > > I'm still left wondering why we want to use CI resources to find bugs that > the users will never encounter. > If you take out "and optionally run UTs and Dtests against 1.7" from > workflow1 then I'm fine with it. > > The time it takes for tests to run is a headache, so to have to run dtests > four times over makes me grimace. > > > > C* 4.0 > > I'm not quite clear on what the change you intend here is. > > Currently afaik we can't build the artefacts against only either JDK8 or > JDK11, hence the hybrid jdk setup. > I think building the artefacts should be part of the CI build step because > patches are not always about java code. > > And that unit and dtests are run only against these 'release' built > artefacts. Presuming the plan remains that the hybrid approach would be the > 'release' process so long as jdk11 was GA before Cassandra-4.0. > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/45b3f12885f881d211f79368bdd5046e504e0149757cf19c8747bcb2@%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E > > In that thread it was mentioned the concerns about the cost of running > tests twice, and whether we should avoid running tests with JDK11 until > we're closer to formally supporting JDK11 at run-time. > > regards, > Mick > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
Re: Request for post-freeze merge exception
+1 to merge. -- Michael On 09/04/2018 01:05 PM, Sam Tunnicliffe wrote: > Hey all, > > On 2018-31-08 CASSANDRA-14145 had been +1'd by two reviewers and CI was > green, and so it was marked Ready To Commit. This was before the 4.0 > feature freeze but before it landed, CASSANDRA-14408, which touched a few > common areas of the code, was merged. I didn't have chance to finish the > rebase over the weekend but in the end it turned out that most of the > conflicts were in test code and were straightforward to resolve. I'd like > to commit this now; the rebase is done (& has been re-reviewed), and the CI > is still green so I suspect most of the community would probably be ok with > that. We did vote for a freeze though and I don't want to subvert or > undermine that decision, so I wanted to check and give a chance for anyone > to raise objections before I did. > > I'll wait 24 hours, and if nobody objects before then I'll merge to trunk. > > Thanks, > Sam > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Request for post-freeze merge exception
+1 Dinesh On Tuesday, September 4, 2018, 12:51:49 PM PDT, Ariel Weisberg wrote: +1 Transient Replication had some rebase pain as well, but we were able to get through it at the last minute. The traffic on the last few days was pretty heavy with several substantial commits. On Tue, Sep 4, 2018, at 2:19 PM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > Seems like a reasonable thing to merge to me. Nothing else has been > committed, it was approved pre-freeze, seems like the rush to merge was > bound to have some number of rebase casualties. > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 11:15 AM Sam Tunnicliffe wrote: > > > Hey all, > > > > On 2018-31-08 CASSANDRA-14145 had been +1'd by two reviewers and CI was > > green, and so it was marked Ready To Commit. This was before the 4.0 > > feature freeze but before it landed, CASSANDRA-14408, which touched a few > > common areas of the code, was merged. I didn't have chance to finish the > > rebase over the weekend but in the end it turned out that most of the > > conflicts were in test code and were straightforward to resolve. I'd like > > to commit this now; the rebase is done (& has been re-reviewed), and the CI > > is still green so I suspect most of the community would probably be ok with > > that. We did vote for a freeze though and I don't want to subvert or > > undermine that decision, so I wanted to check and give a chance for anyone > > to raise objections before I did. > > > > I'll wait 24 hours, and if nobody objects before then I'll merge to trunk. > > > > Thanks, > > Sam > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Request for post-freeze merge exception
+1 Transient Replication had some rebase pain as well, but we were able to get through it at the last minute. The traffic on the last few days was pretty heavy with several substantial commits. On Tue, Sep 4, 2018, at 2:19 PM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > Seems like a reasonable thing to merge to me. Nothing else has been > committed, it was approved pre-freeze, seems like the rush to merge was > bound to have some number of rebase casualties. > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 11:15 AM Sam Tunnicliffe wrote: > > > Hey all, > > > > On 2018-31-08 CASSANDRA-14145 had been +1'd by two reviewers and CI was > > green, and so it was marked Ready To Commit. This was before the 4.0 > > feature freeze but before it landed, CASSANDRA-14408, which touched a few > > common areas of the code, was merged. I didn't have chance to finish the > > rebase over the weekend but in the end it turned out that most of the > > conflicts were in test code and were straightforward to resolve. I'd like > > to commit this now; the rebase is done (& has been re-reviewed), and the CI > > is still green so I suspect most of the community would probably be ok with > > that. We did vote for a freeze though and I don't want to subvert or > > undermine that decision, so I wanted to check and give a chance for anyone > > to raise objections before I did. > > > > I'll wait 24 hours, and if nobody objects before then I'll merge to trunk. > > > > Thanks, > > Sam > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Request for post-freeze merge exception
Seems like a reasonable thing to merge to me. Nothing else has been committed, it was approved pre-freeze, seems like the rush to merge was bound to have some number of rebase casualties. On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 11:15 AM Sam Tunnicliffe wrote: > Hey all, > > On 2018-31-08 CASSANDRA-14145 had been +1'd by two reviewers and CI was > green, and so it was marked Ready To Commit. This was before the 4.0 > feature freeze but before it landed, CASSANDRA-14408, which touched a few > common areas of the code, was merged. I didn't have chance to finish the > rebase over the weekend but in the end it turned out that most of the > conflicts were in test code and were straightforward to resolve. I'd like > to commit this now; the rebase is done (& has been re-reviewed), and the CI > is still green so I suspect most of the community would probably be ok with > that. We did vote for a freeze though and I don't want to subvert or > undermine that decision, so I wanted to check and give a chance for anyone > to raise objections before I did. > > I'll wait 24 hours, and if nobody objects before then I'll merge to trunk. > > Thanks, > Sam >
Request for post-freeze merge exception
Hey all, On 2018-31-08 CASSANDRA-14145 had been +1'd by two reviewers and CI was green, and so it was marked Ready To Commit. This was before the 4.0 feature freeze but before it landed, CASSANDRA-14408, which touched a few common areas of the code, was merged. I didn't have chance to finish the rebase over the weekend but in the end it turned out that most of the conflicts were in test code and were straightforward to resolve. I'd like to commit this now; the rebase is done (& has been re-reviewed), and the CI is still green so I suspect most of the community would probably be ok with that. We did vote for a freeze though and I don't want to subvert or undermine that decision, so I wanted to check and give a chance for anyone to raise objections before I did. I'll wait 24 hours, and if nobody objects before then I'll merge to trunk. Thanks, Sam
