Re: Review Request: HIVE-1636: Implement SHOW TABLES {FROM | IN} db_name

2011-01-20 Thread Carl Steinbach
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/323/#review145 --- ql/src/java/org/apache/hadoop/hive/ql/parse/DDLSemanticAnalyzer.java

[jira] Updated: (HIVE-1636) Implement SHOW TABLES {FROM | IN} db_name

2011-01-20 Thread Carl Steinbach (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-1636?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Carl Steinbach updated HIVE-1636: - Status: Open (was: Patch Available) I left some comments on reviewboard. Thanks. Implement

[jira] Commented: (HIVE-1918) Add export/import facilities to the hive system

2011-01-20 Thread Krishna Kumar (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-1918?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12984128#action_12984128 ] Krishna Kumar commented on HIVE-1918: - Ok. Will take of this via a delegating ctor. A

Build failed in Hudson: Hive-trunk-h0.20 #501

2011-01-20 Thread Apache Hudson Server
See https://hudson.apache.org/hudson/job/Hive-trunk-h0.20/501/ -- [...truncated 7224 lines...] create-dirs: init: compile: [echo] Compiling: anttasks [javac] https://hudson.apache.org/hudson/job/Hive-trunk-h0.20/ws/hive/ant/build.xml:40:

Re: Build failed in Hudson: Hive-trunk-h0.20 #500

2011-01-20 Thread Devaraj Das
I checked the console output on the failed build. The command that's used to run the tests is 'ant -Dhadoop.version=0.20.0 .'. This probably is the cause of the problem (though I haven't verified locally). Devaraj. On Jan 20, 2011, at 5:26 AM, Carl Steinbach c...@cloudera.com wrote:

[jira] Commented: (HIVE-1918) Add export/import facilities to the hive system

2011-01-20 Thread Edward Capriolo (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-1918?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12984348#action_12984348 ] Edward Capriolo commented on HIVE-1918: --- I was not implying that we should definately

Re: patch review process

2011-01-20 Thread John Sichi
+1 on option 1. This is standard operating practice (for all code changes, no exceptions) at Facebook, Google, and many other companies that care about code quality. (The latest HBase wiki makes an exception for patches that only involve one changed+unreviewed file, but I think that creates

[jira] Commented: (HIVE-1817) Remove Hive dependency on unrelease commons-cli 2.0 Snapshot

2011-01-20 Thread Edward Capriolo (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-1817?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12984400#action_12984400 ] Edward Capriolo commented on HIVE-1817: --- Arge. This is a major buzzkill, our shims,

Re: patch review process

2011-01-20 Thread yongqiang he
I would argue that how to do the review has nothing to do with code quality. No review board has no connection with low quality code. The review board just provides a limited view of the diff's context. So if the review is familiar with the diff's context and is confident with the patch, it is

Re: patch review process

2011-01-20 Thread Namit Jain
I agree on the problem of comments. For a new reviewer, it makes the process more painful. But, I think, the issues are not major, and we should decide one approach or another. Even for option 2., we can make it mandatory for the contributor to submit a reviewboard request if the reviewer asks

Re: patch review process

2011-01-20 Thread Edward Capriolo
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Namit Jain nj...@fb.com wrote: I agree on the problem of comments. For a new reviewer, it makes the process more painful. But, I think, the issues are not major, and we should decide one approach or another. Even for option 2., we can make it mandatory for

[jira] Updated: (HIVE-1910) Provide config parameters to control cache object pinning

2011-01-20 Thread Mac Yang (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-1910?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Mac Yang updated HIVE-1910: --- Status: Patch Available (was: Open) https://reviews.apache.org/r/343/ Provide config parameters to control

Review Request: HIVE-1910: Provide config parameters to control cache object pinning

2011-01-20 Thread Mac Yang
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/343/ --- Review request for hive. Summary --- Review for HIVE-1910 This addresses

[jira] Commented: (HIVE-1918) Add export/import facilities to the hive system

2011-01-20 Thread Krishna Kumar (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-1918?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12984563#action_12984563 ] Krishna Kumar commented on HIVE-1918: - Why export/import needs this change: It is not

[jira] Updated: (HIVE-1872) Hive process is exiting on executing ALTER query

2011-01-20 Thread Bharath R (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-1872?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Bharath R updated HIVE-1872: - Release Note: Avoiding System.exit () for killing the MR Process , instead kill the task ( which are not

Re: patch review process

2011-01-20 Thread Namit Jain
I was thinking about it. Let us do the following: For big patches (a big patch is one which involves changing more than 10 files - those files can be test/code changes or even generated files), reviewBoard is mandatory. For smaller patches, reviewBoard is optional. However, if any reviewer asks

Re: patch review process

2011-01-20 Thread John Sichi
On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Namit Jain wrote: As good practice, also copy important review comments in the jira, so that they are searchable and give enough context to a new contributor. The old review board instance did this automatically. Todd has an INFRA JIRA open to get this for