Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Кривенко Ігор]

+1 for stricter commit guidelines.
I faced with some flaky tests.  Mainly,  it is TestTezPerfCliTests and some
of LlapLocalCliDriver.

Thanks, Igor.

On Thu, May 17, 2018, 22:54 Mithun RK  wrote:

> bq. run tests on 10 “noop" patches
>
> Good idea, I think. I've upped NOOP patches on some of my JIRAs before,
> only to establish the "acceptable" baseline of failing tests. One problem
> was that failing-tests tended to change over time, so this needed
> repeating.:/
>
> The tighter commit rules are a welcome change.
>
> Mithun
>
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 12:31 PM Sergey Shelukhin 
> wrote:
>
> > I am actually hitting all kinds of test failures clearly unrelated to my
> > patches now…
> > Should we create 10 jiras and run tests on 10 “noop" patches to find
> which
> > tests are flaky?
> >
> > On 18/5/16, 22:58, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez" 
> wrote:
> >
> > >The vote passes with 19 +1s. Thanks for voting and supporting the
> > >initiative, it has been encouraging to see this reaction from the
> > >community.
> > >
> > >I have changed the committers guide as agreed [2]. We do not have
> > >consistent clean runs yet, hence we have more work ahead. Please, get
> > >involved identifying and fixing those flaky tests so we can move to
> > >normal development speed as soon as possible.
> > >
> > >From now on, no commits should happen without a clean run, every
> > >committer should enforce this policy.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >-Jesús
> > >
> > >
> > >On 5/16/18, 3:58 PM, "Mithun RK"  wrote:
> > >
> > >+1
> > >
> > >On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:40 PM Yongzhi Chen 
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Siddharth Seth  >
> > >wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > +1
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
> > >> > jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were
> > >failing
> > >> > > consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote
> to
> > >gather
> > >> > > support from the community to be stricter wrt committing
> > >patches to
> > >> Hive.
> > >> > > The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be
> > >obtained
> > >> > > before committing, but there is another clause that allows
> > >committing
> > >> > under
> > >> > > the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as
> good
> > >as
> > >> having
> > >> > > no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the
> +1
> > >from
> > >> > > testing infra before committing.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the
> > >testing
> > >> infra
> > >> > > before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and
> > >2) we
> > >> will
> > >> > > have another incentive as a community to create a more robust
> > >testing
> > >> > > infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that
> > >are not
> > >> > > flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Please, share your thoughts about this.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Here is my +1.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Jesús
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
> > >> > > mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
> > >> > >
> > >> > > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
> > >> > > HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Mithun RK]

bq. run tests on 10 “noop" patches

Good idea, I think. I've upped NOOP patches on some of my JIRAs before,
only to establish the "acceptable" baseline of failing tests. One problem
was that failing-tests tended to change over time, so this needed
repeating.:/

The tighter commit rules are a welcome change.

Mithun

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 12:31 PM Sergey Shelukhin 
wrote:

> I am actually hitting all kinds of test failures clearly unrelated to my
> patches now…
> Should we create 10 jiras and run tests on 10 “noop" patches to find which
> tests are flaky?
>
> On 18/5/16, 22:58, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez"  wrote:
>
> >The vote passes with 19 +1s. Thanks for voting and supporting the
> >initiative, it has been encouraging to see this reaction from the
> >community.
> >
> >I have changed the committers guide as agreed [2]. We do not have
> >consistent clean runs yet, hence we have more work ahead. Please, get
> >involved identifying and fixing those flaky tests so we can move to
> >normal development speed as soon as possible.
> >
> >From now on, no commits should happen without a clean run, every
> >committer should enforce this policy.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >-Jesús
> >
> >
> >On 5/16/18, 3:58 PM, "Mithun RK"  wrote:
> >
> >+1
> >
> >On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:40 PM Yongzhi Chen 
> >wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Siddharth Seth 
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > +1
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
> >> > jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were
> >failing
> >> > > consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to
> >gather
> >> > > support from the community to be stricter wrt committing
> >patches to
> >> Hive.
> >> > > The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be
> >obtained
> >> > > before committing, but there is another clause that allows
> >committing
> >> > under
> >> > > the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good
> >as
> >> having
> >> > > no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1
> >from
> >> > > testing infra before committing.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the
> >testing
> >> infra
> >> > > before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and
> >2) we
> >> will
> >> > > have another incentive as a community to create a more robust
> >testing
> >> > > infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that
> >are not
> >> > > flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Please, share your thoughts about this.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Here is my +1.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > >
> >> > > Jesús
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
> >> > > mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
> >> > >
> >> > > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
> >> > > HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Sergey Shelukhin]

https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20tex
t%20~%20%22%5C%22NOOP%20jira%5C%22%22

Anything that fails on these JIRAs should be fixed or disabled :)

On 18/5/17, 12:32, "Sergey Shelukhin"  wrote:

>Let me just do that...
>
>On 18/5/17, 12:31, "Sergey Shelukhin"  wrote:
>
>>I am actually hitting all kinds of test failures clearly unrelated to my
>>patches now…
>>Should we create 10 jiras and run tests on 10 “noop" patches to find
>>which
>>tests are flaky?
>>
>>On 18/5/16, 22:58, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez"  wrote:
>>
>>>The vote passes with 19 +1s. Thanks for voting and supporting the
>>>initiative, it has been encouraging to see this reaction from the
>>>community.
>>>
>>>I have changed the committers guide as agreed [2]. We do not have
>>>consistent clean runs yet, hence we have more work ahead. Please, get
>>>involved identifying and fixing those flaky tests so we can move to
>>>normal development speed as soon as possible.
>>>
>>>From now on, no commits should happen without a clean run, every
>>>committer should enforce this policy.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>-Jesús
>>>
>>>
>>>On 5/16/18, 3:58 PM, "Mithun RK"  wrote:
>>>
>>>+1
>>>
>>>On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:40 PM Yongzhi Chen 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Siddharth Seth 
>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > +1
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
>>>> > jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were
>>>failing
>>>> > > consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote
>>>to
>>>gather
>>>> > > support from the community to be stricter wrt committing
>>>patches to
>>>> Hive.
>>>> > > The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be
>>>obtained
>>>> > > before committing, but there is another clause that allows
>>>committing
>>>> > under
>>>> > > the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as
>>>good
>>>as
>>>> having
>>>> > > no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the
>>>+1
>>>from
>>>> > > testing infra before committing.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the
>>>testing
>>>> infra
>>>> > > before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and
>>>2) we
>>>> will
>>>> > > have another incentive as a community to create a more robust
>>>testing
>>>> > > infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that
>>>are not
>>>> > > flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Please, share your thoughts about this.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Here is my +1.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Thanks,
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Jesús
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
>>>> > > mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
>>>> > >
>>>> > > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
>>>> > > HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Sergey Shelukhin]

Let me just do that...

On 18/5/17, 12:31, "Sergey Shelukhin"  wrote:

>I am actually hitting all kinds of test failures clearly unrelated to my
>patches now…
>Should we create 10 jiras and run tests on 10 “noop" patches to find which
>tests are flaky?
>
>On 18/5/16, 22:58, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez"  wrote:
>
>>The vote passes with 19 +1s. Thanks for voting and supporting the
>>initiative, it has been encouraging to see this reaction from the
>>community.
>>
>>I have changed the committers guide as agreed [2]. We do not have
>>consistent clean runs yet, hence we have more work ahead. Please, get
>>involved identifying and fixing those flaky tests so we can move to
>>normal development speed as soon as possible.
>>
>>From now on, no commits should happen without a clean run, every
>>committer should enforce this policy.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>-Jesús
>>
>>
>>On 5/16/18, 3:58 PM, "Mithun RK"  wrote:
>>
>>+1
>>
>>On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:40 PM Yongzhi Chen 
>>wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Siddharth Seth 
>>wrote:
>>>
>>> > +1
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
>>> > jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were
>>failing
>>> > > consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to
>>gather
>>> > > support from the community to be stricter wrt committing
>>patches to
>>> Hive.
>>> > > The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be
>>obtained
>>> > > before committing, but there is another clause that allows
>>committing
>>> > under
>>> > > the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good
>>as
>>> having
>>> > > no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1
>>from
>>> > > testing infra before committing.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the
>>testing
>>> infra
>>> > > before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and
>>2) we
>>> will
>>> > > have another incentive as a community to create a more robust
>>testing
>>> > > infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that
>>are not
>>> > > flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Please, share your thoughts about this.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Here is my +1.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Thanks,
>>> > >
>>> > > Jesús
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
>>> > > mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
>>> > >
>>> > > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
>>> > > HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Sergey Shelukhin]

I am actually hitting all kinds of test failures clearly unrelated to my
patches now…
Should we create 10 jiras and run tests on 10 “noop" patches to find which
tests are flaky?

On 18/5/16, 22:58, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez"  wrote:

>The vote passes with 19 +1s. Thanks for voting and supporting the
>initiative, it has been encouraging to see this reaction from the
>community.
>
>I have changed the committers guide as agreed [2]. We do not have
>consistent clean runs yet, hence we have more work ahead. Please, get
>involved identifying and fixing those flaky tests so we can move to
>normal development speed as soon as possible.
>
>From now on, no commits should happen without a clean run, every
>committer should enforce this policy.
>
>Thanks,
>-Jesús
>
>
>On 5/16/18, 3:58 PM, "Mithun RK"  wrote:
>
>+1
>
>On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:40 PM Yongzhi Chen 
>wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Siddharth Seth 
>wrote:
>>
>> > +1
>> >
>> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
>> > jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were
>failing
>> > > consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to
>gather
>> > > support from the community to be stricter wrt committing
>patches to
>> Hive.
>> > > The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be
>obtained
>> > > before committing, but there is another clause that allows
>committing
>> > under
>> > > the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good
>as
>> having
>> > > no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1
>from
>> > > testing infra before committing.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the
>testing
>> infra
>> > > before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and
>2) we
>> will
>> > > have another incentive as a community to create a more robust
>testing
>> > > infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that
>are not
>> > > flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Please, share your thoughts about this.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Here is my +1.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > >
>> > > Jesús
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
>> > > mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
>> > >
>> > > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
>> > > HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Jesus Camacho Rodriguez]

The vote passes with 19 +1s. Thanks for voting and supporting the initiative, 
it has been encouraging to see this reaction from the community.

I have changed the committers guide as agreed [2]. We do not have consistent 
clean runs yet, hence we have more work ahead. Please, get involved identifying 
and fixing those flaky tests so we can move to normal development speed as soon 
as possible.

>From now on, no commits should happen without a clean run, every committer 
>should enforce this policy.

Thanks,
-Jesús


On 5/16/18, 3:58 PM, "Mithun RK"  wrote:

+1

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:40 PM Yongzhi Chen  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Siddharth Seth  wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
> > jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were failing
> > > consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to gather
> > > support from the community to be stricter wrt committing patches to
> Hive.
> > > The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be 
obtained
> > > before committing, but there is another clause that allows committing
> > under
> > > the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good as
> having
> > > no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1 from
> > > testing infra before committing.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the testing
> infra
> > > before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and 2) we
> will
> > > have another incentive as a community to create a more robust testing
> > > infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that are not
> > > flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please, share your thoughts about this.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Here is my +1.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jesús
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
> > > mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
> > >
> > > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
> > > HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Mithun RK]

+1

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:40 PM Yongzhi Chen  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Siddharth Seth  wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
> > jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were failing
> > > consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to gather
> > > support from the community to be stricter wrt committing patches to
> Hive.
> > > The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be obtained
> > > before committing, but there is another clause that allows committing
> > under
> > > the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good as
> having
> > > no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1 from
> > > testing infra before committing.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the testing
> infra
> > > before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and 2) we
> will
> > > have another incentive as a community to create a more robust testing
> > > infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that are not
> > > flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please, share your thoughts about this.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Here is my +1.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jesús
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
> > > mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
> > >
> > > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
> > > HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Yongzhi Chen]

+1

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Siddharth Seth  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
> jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were failing
> > consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to gather
> > support from the community to be stricter wrt committing patches to Hive.
> > The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be obtained
> > before committing, but there is another clause that allows committing
> under
> > the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good as having
> > no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1 from
> > testing infra before committing.
> >
> >
> >
> > As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the testing infra
> > before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and 2) we will
> > have another incentive as a community to create a more robust testing
> > infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that are not
> > flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please, share your thoughts about this.
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is my +1.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jesús
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
> > mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
> >
> > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
> > HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Siddharth Seth]

+1

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
jcama...@apache.org> wrote:

> After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were failing
> consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to gather
> support from the community to be stricter wrt committing patches to Hive.
> The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be obtained
> before committing, but there is another clause that allows committing under
> the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good as having
> no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1 from
> testing infra before committing.
>
>
>
> As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the testing infra
> before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and 2) we will
> have another incentive as a community to create a more robust testing
> infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that are not
> flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
>
>
>
> Please, share your thoughts about this.
>
>
>
> Here is my +1.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jesús
>
>
>
> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
> mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
>
> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
> HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
>
>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Vihang Karajgaonkar]

+1 Default retry on failing test should help. Another way to identify test
issues is to run them in the same batch as being run in the precommit job.

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Deepak Jaiswal <djais...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:

> +1
>
> On 5/15/18, 4:06 PM, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez" <jcama...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> That is already part of the policy although it apparently remained
> unnoticed:
>
> *If a commit introduces new test failures, the preferred process is to
> revert the patch, rather than opening a new JIRA to fix the new failures.*
>
> It can be reworded to be stricter... But in any case, we should all
> enforce it from now on.
>
> -Jesús
>
>
> On 5/15/18, 3:55 PM, "Sergey Shelukhin" <ser...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
> +1. Can we also add something about revert-first policy if some
> patch
> breaks tests?
> So that it’s ok to revert if the tests aren’t fixed quickly with a
> follow-up.
>
> On 18/5/15, 13:08, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez" <jcama...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> >I was hoping that by being stricter, we are going to make an
> effort to
> >fix the flaky
> >tests. The reason is precisely what you mention: if you cannot
> commit,
> >you need
> >to fix this situation. That is what I meant with providing an
> additional
> >incentive to
> >make testing more robust: currently there is no incentive. I do
> not think
> >that
> >improving tests is a responsibility of a single developer, but
> rather a
> >responsibility
> >of all of us. Disabling the tests is a one-time solution to get
> to a
> >clean run, trying to
> >accelerate the process to get to it, as we did not want to block
> >development for
> >weeks. Then flaky tests should just not go in, and if they do, we
> can
> >just revert
> >the patch (this is what [2] says btw).
> >
> >The first thing we need to do is identifying why a test is flaky.
> After
> >examining runs
> >for the last few days, I saw many of them fall in following
> categories:
> >- Many of them are flaky because of estimations such as data
> size. One
> >possible
> >solution is to mask data size for those tests, as we already mask
> some
> >environment
> >dependent information.
> >- Some of them are flaky because environment issues, e.g., I see
> this a
> >lot with
> >TestTriggersMoveWorkloadManager. If their logic cannot be
> rewritten, a
> >possible
> >solution is to add a max number of retries selectively for those
> tests
> >(surefire has
> >a rerunFailingTestsCount option that I am not familiar with),
> expecting
> >that they
> >pass at least once.
> >
> >Not sure if you have other ideas?
> >
> >-Jesús
> >
> >
> >On 5/15/18, 11:59 AM, "Vihang Karajgaonkar" <vih...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >Can we also define a standard process to identify a flaky
> test and
> >thereby
> >making it eligible to be disabled? I am worried that the
> intermittent
> >the
> >flaky ones will stall the patches when we restart allowing the
> >commits.
> >
> >On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Vineet Garg <
> vg...@hortonworks.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> > On May 15, 2018, at 9:13 AM, Alan Gates <
> alanfga...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> > +1.
> >> >
> >> > Alan.
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Sergio Pena
> ><sergio.p...@cloudera.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> +1
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Gunther Hagleitner <
> >> >> ghagleit...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> +1
> >> >>> __

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Deepak Jaiswal]

+1

On 5/15/18, 4:06 PM, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez" <jcama...@apache.org> wrote:

That is already part of the policy although it apparently remained 
unnoticed:

*If a commit introduces new test failures, the preferred process is to 
revert the patch, rather than opening a new JIRA to fix the new failures.*

It can be reworded to be stricter... But in any case, we should all enforce 
it from now on.

-Jesús


On 5/15/18, 3:55 PM, "Sergey Shelukhin" <ser...@hortonworks.com> wrote:

+1. Can we also add something about revert-first policy if some patch
breaks tests?
So that it’s ok to revert if the tests aren’t fixed quickly with a
follow-up.

On 18/5/15, 13:08, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez" <jcama...@apache.org> 
wrote:

>I was hoping that by being stricter, we are going to make an effort to
>fix the flaky
>tests. The reason is precisely what you mention: if you cannot commit,
>you need
>to fix this situation. That is what I meant with providing an 
additional
>incentive to
>make testing more robust: currently there is no incentive. I do not 
think
>that
>improving tests is a responsibility of a single developer, but rather a
>responsibility
>of all of us. Disabling the tests is a one-time solution to get to a
>clean run, trying to
>accelerate the process to get to it, as we did not want to block
>development for
>weeks. Then flaky tests should just not go in, and if they do, we can
>just revert
>the patch (this is what [2] says btw).
>
>The first thing we need to do is identifying why a test is flaky. After
>examining runs
>for the last few days, I saw many of them fall in following categories:
>- Many of them are flaky because of estimations such as data size. One
>possible
>solution is to mask data size for those tests, as we already mask some
>environment
>dependent information.
>- Some of them are flaky because environment issues, e.g., I see this a
>lot with
>TestTriggersMoveWorkloadManager. If their logic cannot be rewritten, a
>possible
>solution is to add a max number of retries selectively for those tests
>(surefire has
>a rerunFailingTestsCount option that I am not familiar with), expecting
>that they
>pass at least once.
>
>Not sure if you have other ideas?
>
>-Jesús
>
>
>On 5/15/18, 11:59 AM, "Vihang Karajgaonkar" <vih...@cloudera.com> 
wrote:
>
>Can we also define a standard process to identify a flaky test and
>thereby
>making it eligible to be disabled? I am worried that the 
intermittent
>the
>flaky ones will stall the patches when we restart allowing the
>commits.
>
>On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Vineet Garg 
<vg...@hortonworks.com>
>wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> > On May 15, 2018, at 9:13 AM, Alan Gates <alanfga...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> >
>> > +1.
>> >
>> > Alan.
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Sergio Pena
><sergio.p...@cloudera.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Gunther Hagleitner <
>> >> ghagleit...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> +1
>> >>> 
>> >>> From: Sankar Hariappan <shariap...@hortonworks.com>
>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 9:03 AM
>> >>> To: dev@hive.apache.org
>> >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines
>> >>>
>> >>> +1
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 15/05/18, 9:30 PM, "Sahil Takiar" <takiar.sa...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> +1
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Owen O'Malley <

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Jesus Camacho Rodriguez]

That is already part of the policy although it apparently remained unnoticed:

*If a commit introduces new test failures, the preferred process is to revert 
the patch, rather than opening a new JIRA to fix the new failures.*

It can be reworded to be stricter... But in any case, we should all enforce it 
from now on.

-Jesús


On 5/15/18, 3:55 PM, "Sergey Shelukhin" <ser...@hortonworks.com> wrote:

+1. Can we also add something about revert-first policy if some patch
breaks tests?
So that it’s ok to revert if the tests aren’t fixed quickly with a
follow-up.

On 18/5/15, 13:08, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez" <jcama...@apache.org> wrote:

>I was hoping that by being stricter, we are going to make an effort to
>fix the flaky
>tests. The reason is precisely what you mention: if you cannot commit,
>you need
>to fix this situation. That is what I meant with providing an additional
>incentive to
>make testing more robust: currently there is no incentive. I do not think
>that
>improving tests is a responsibility of a single developer, but rather a
>responsibility
>of all of us. Disabling the tests is a one-time solution to get to a
>clean run, trying to
>accelerate the process to get to it, as we did not want to block
>development for
>weeks. Then flaky tests should just not go in, and if they do, we can
>just revert
>the patch (this is what [2] says btw).
>
>The first thing we need to do is identifying why a test is flaky. After
>examining runs
>for the last few days, I saw many of them fall in following categories:
>- Many of them are flaky because of estimations such as data size. One
>possible
>solution is to mask data size for those tests, as we already mask some
>environment
>dependent information.
>- Some of them are flaky because environment issues, e.g., I see this a
>lot with
>TestTriggersMoveWorkloadManager. If their logic cannot be rewritten, a
>possible
>solution is to add a max number of retries selectively for those tests
>(surefire has
>a rerunFailingTestsCount option that I am not familiar with), expecting
>that they
>pass at least once.
>
>Not sure if you have other ideas?
>
>-Jesús
>
>
>On 5/15/18, 11:59 AM, "Vihang Karajgaonkar" <vih...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>Can we also define a standard process to identify a flaky test and
>thereby
>making it eligible to be disabled? I am worried that the intermittent
>the
>flaky ones will stall the patches when we restart allowing the
>commits.
>
>On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Vineet Garg <vg...@hortonworks.com>
>wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> > On May 15, 2018, at 9:13 AM, Alan Gates <alanfga...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> >
>> > +1.
>> >
>> > Alan.
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Sergio Pena
><sergio.p...@cloudera.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Gunther Hagleitner <
>> >> ghagleit...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> +1
>> >>> 
>> >>> From: Sankar Hariappan <shariap...@hortonworks.com>
>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 9:03 AM
>> >>> To: dev@hive.apache.org
>> >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines
>> >>>
>> >>> +1
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 15/05/18, 9:30 PM, "Sahil Takiar" <takiar.sa...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> +1
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Owen O'Malley <
>> owen.omal...@gmail.com
>> >>>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> +1
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Peter Vary
><pv...@cloudera.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> +1 - Hoping for something like t

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Sergey Shelukhin]

+1. Can we also add something about revert-first policy if some patch
breaks tests?
So that it’s ok to revert if the tests aren’t fixed quickly with a
follow-up.

On 18/5/15, 13:08, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez" <jcama...@apache.org> wrote:

>I was hoping that by being stricter, we are going to make an effort to
>fix the flaky
>tests. The reason is precisely what you mention: if you cannot commit,
>you need
>to fix this situation. That is what I meant with providing an additional
>incentive to
>make testing more robust: currently there is no incentive. I do not think
>that
>improving tests is a responsibility of a single developer, but rather a
>responsibility
>of all of us. Disabling the tests is a one-time solution to get to a
>clean run, trying to
>accelerate the process to get to it, as we did not want to block
>development for
>weeks. Then flaky tests should just not go in, and if they do, we can
>just revert
>the patch (this is what [2] says btw).
>
>The first thing we need to do is identifying why a test is flaky. After
>examining runs
>for the last few days, I saw many of them fall in following categories:
>- Many of them are flaky because of estimations such as data size. One
>possible
>solution is to mask data size for those tests, as we already mask some
>environment
>dependent information.
>- Some of them are flaky because environment issues, e.g., I see this a
>lot with
>TestTriggersMoveWorkloadManager. If their logic cannot be rewritten, a
>possible
>solution is to add a max number of retries selectively for those tests
>(surefire has
>a rerunFailingTestsCount option that I am not familiar with), expecting
>that they
>pass at least once.
>
>Not sure if you have other ideas?
>
>-Jesús
>
>
>On 5/15/18, 11:59 AM, "Vihang Karajgaonkar" <vih...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>Can we also define a standard process to identify a flaky test and
>thereby
>making it eligible to be disabled? I am worried that the intermittent
>the
>flaky ones will stall the patches when we restart allowing the
>commits.
>
>On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Vineet Garg <vg...@hortonworks.com>
>wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> > On May 15, 2018, at 9:13 AM, Alan Gates <alanfga...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> >
>> > +1.
>> >
>> > Alan.
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Sergio Pena
><sergio.p...@cloudera.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Gunther Hagleitner <
>> >> ghagleit...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> +1
>> >>> 
>> >>> From: Sankar Hariappan <shariap...@hortonworks.com>
>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 9:03 AM
>> >>> To: dev@hive.apache.org
>> >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines
>> >>>
>> >>> +1
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 15/05/18, 9:30 PM, "Sahil Takiar" <takiar.sa...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> +1
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Owen O'Malley <
>> owen.omal...@gmail.com
>> >>>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> +1
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Peter Vary
><pv...@cloudera.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> +1 - Hoping for something like this for a long while! Thanks
>for
>> >>> taking
>> >>>>>> this up all!
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On May 15, 2018, at 5:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
>> >>>>>> jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Forgot to mention the length of the vote in original
>message.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Let's leave the vote open for a shorter period than usual,
>for
>> >>> instance
>> >>>>>> 48 hours, i.e., till Wednesday 10pm PST. Situation can only
>get
>> >> worse
>> >>>>> than
>> >>>>>> it is n

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Jesus Camacho Rodriguez]

I was hoping that by being stricter, we are going to make an effort to fix the 
flaky
tests. The reason is precisely what you mention: if you cannot commit, you need
to fix this situation. That is what I meant with providing an additional 
incentive to
make testing more robust: currently there is no incentive. I do not think that
improving tests is a responsibility of a single developer, but rather a 
responsibility
of all of us. Disabling the tests is a one-time solution to get to a clean run, 
trying to
accelerate the process to get to it, as we did not want to block development for
weeks. Then flaky tests should just not go in, and if they do, we can just 
revert
the patch (this is what [2] says btw).

The first thing we need to do is identifying why a test is flaky. After 
examining runs
for the last few days, I saw many of them fall in following categories:
- Many of them are flaky because of estimations such as data size. One possible
solution is to mask data size for those tests, as we already mask some 
environment
dependent information.
- Some of them are flaky because environment issues, e.g., I see this a lot with
TestTriggersMoveWorkloadManager. If their logic cannot be rewritten, a possible
solution is to add a max number of retries selectively for those tests 
(surefire has
a rerunFailingTestsCount option that I am not familiar with), expecting that 
they
pass at least once.

Not sure if you have other ideas?

-Jesús


On 5/15/18, 11:59 AM, "Vihang Karajgaonkar" <vih...@cloudera.com> wrote:

Can we also define a standard process to identify a flaky test and thereby
making it eligible to be disabled? I am worried that the intermittent the
flaky ones will stall the patches when we restart allowing the commits.

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Vineet Garg <vg...@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> > On May 15, 2018, at 9:13 AM, Alan Gates <alanfga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1.
> >
> > Alan.
> >
> > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Sergio Pena <sergio.p...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Gunther Hagleitner <
> >> ghagleit...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1
> >>> ____
    > >>> From: Sankar Hariappan <shariap...@hortonworks.com>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 9:03 AM
> >>> To: dev@hive.apache.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 15/05/18, 9:30 PM, "Sahil Takiar" <takiar.sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> +1
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Owen O'Malley <
> owen.omal...@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +1 - Hoping for something like this for a long while! Thanks for
> >>> taking
> >>>>>> this up all!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On May 15, 2018, at 5:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
> >>>>>> jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Forgot to mention the length of the vote in original message.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Let's leave the vote open for a shorter period than usual, for
> >>> instance
> >>>>>> 48 hours, i.e., till Wednesday 10pm PST. Situation can only get
> >> worse
> >>>>> than
> >>>>>> it is now if we do not take action for a longer period.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As Alan suggested, vote passes if there is a lazy majority (at
> >>> least 3
> >>>>>> votes, more +1s than -1s).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Jesús
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 5/15/18, 8:37 AM, "Andrew Sherman" <asher...@cloudera.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>&g

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Vihang Karajgaonkar]

Can we also define a standard process to identify a flaky test and thereby
making it eligible to be disabled? I am worried that the intermittent the
flaky ones will stall the patches when we restart allowing the commits.

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Vineet Garg <vg...@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> > On May 15, 2018, at 9:13 AM, Alan Gates <alanfga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1.
> >
> > Alan.
> >
> > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Sergio Pena <sergio.p...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Gunther Hagleitner <
> >> ghagleit...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1
> >>> ____
> >>> From: Sankar Hariappan <shariap...@hortonworks.com>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 9:03 AM
> >>> To: dev@hive.apache.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 15/05/18, 9:30 PM, "Sahil Takiar" <takiar.sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> +1
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Owen O'Malley <
> owen.omal...@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +1 - Hoping for something like this for a long while! Thanks for
> >>> taking
> >>>>>> this up all!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On May 15, 2018, at 5:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
> >>>>>> jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Forgot to mention the length of the vote in original message.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Let's leave the vote open for a shorter period than usual, for
> >>> instance
> >>>>>> 48 hours, i.e., till Wednesday 10pm PST. Situation can only get
> >> worse
> >>>>> than
> >>>>>> it is now if we do not take action for a longer period.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As Alan suggested, vote passes if there is a lazy majority (at
> >>> least 3
> >>>>>> votes, more +1s than -1s).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Jesús
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 5/15/18, 8:37 AM, "Andrew Sherman" <asher...@cloudera.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>   +1
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>   On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:34 AM Rui Li <lirui.fu...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Prasanth Jayachandran <
> >>>>>>>> pjayachand...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>>>>> Prasanth
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM -0700, "Jesus Camacho
> >> Rodriguez"
> >>> <
> >>>>>>>>> jcama...@apache.org<mailto:jcama...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were
> >>>>> failing
> >>>>>>>>> consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to
> >>>>> gather
> >>>>>>>>> support from the community to be stricter wrt committing patches
> >>> to
> >>>>>> Hive.
> >>>>>>>>> The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be
> >>>>> obtained
> >>>>>>>>> before committing, but there is another clause that allows
> >>> committing
> >>>>>>>> under
> >>>>>>>>> the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good
> >> as
> >>>>>> having
> >>>>>>>>> no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1
> >>> from
> >>>>>>>>> testing infra before committing.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the
> >> testing
> >>>>>> infra
> >>>>>>>>> before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and 2)
> >>> we
> >>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>> have another incentive as a community to create a more robust
> >>> testing
> >>>>>>>>> infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that
> >> are
> >>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>> flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Please, share your thoughts about this.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Here is my +1.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Jes?s
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
> >>>>>>>>> mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
> >>>>>>>>> HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Best regards!
> >>>>>>>> Rui Li
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Sahil Takiar
> >>>> Software Engineer
> >>>> takiar.sa...@gmail.com | (510) 673-0309
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Vineet Garg]

+1

> On May 15, 2018, at 9:13 AM, Alan Gates <alanfga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> +1.
> 
> Alan.
> 
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Sergio Pena <sergio.p...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> +1
>> 
>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Gunther Hagleitner <
>> ghagleit...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> From: Sankar Hariappan <shariap...@hortonworks.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 9:03 AM
>>> To: dev@hive.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines
>>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 15/05/18, 9:30 PM, "Sahil Takiar" <takiar.sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> +1
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Owen O'Malley <owen.omal...@gmail.com
>>> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> +1
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1 - Hoping for something like this for a long while! Thanks for
>>> taking
>>>>>> this up all!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On May 15, 2018, at 5:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
>>>>>> jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Forgot to mention the length of the vote in original message.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Let's leave the vote open for a shorter period than usual, for
>>> instance
>>>>>> 48 hours, i.e., till Wednesday 10pm PST. Situation can only get
>> worse
>>>>> than
>>>>>> it is now if we do not take action for a longer period.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As Alan suggested, vote passes if there is a lazy majority (at
>>> least 3
>>>>>> votes, more +1s than -1s).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Jesús
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 5/15/18, 8:37 AM, "Andrew Sherman" <asher...@cloudera.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   +1
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:34 AM Rui Li <lirui.fu...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Prasanth Jayachandran <
>>>>>>>> pjayachand...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>> Prasanth
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM -0700, "Jesus Camacho
>> Rodriguez"
>>> <
>>>>>>>>> jcama...@apache.org<mailto:jcama...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were
>>>>> failing
>>>>>>>>> consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to
>>>>> gather
>>>>>>>>> support from the community to be stricter wrt committing patches
>>> to
>>>>>> Hive.
>>>>>>>>> The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be
>>>>> obtained
>>>>>>>>> before committing, but there is another clause that allows
>>> committing
>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>>> the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good
>> as
>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>> no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1
>>> from
>>>>>>>>> testing infra before committing.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the
>> testing
>>>>>> infra
>>>>>>>>> before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and 2)
>>> we
>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> have another incentive as a community to create a more robust
>>> testing
>>>>>>>>> infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that
>> are
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Please, share your thoughts about this.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Here is my +1.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Jes?s
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
>>>>>>>>> mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
>>>>>>>>> HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Best regards!
>>>>>>>> Rui Li
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Sahil Takiar
>>>> Software Engineer
>>>> takiar.sa...@gmail.com | (510) 673-0309
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Alan Gates]

+1.

Alan.

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Sergio Pena <sergio.p...@cloudera.com>
wrote:

> +1
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Gunther Hagleitner <
> ghagleit...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> > 
> > From: Sankar Hariappan <shariap...@hortonworks.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 9:03 AM
> > To: dev@hive.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On 15/05/18, 9:30 PM, "Sahil Takiar" <takiar.sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >+1
> > >
> > >On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Owen O'Malley <owen.omal...@gmail.com
> >
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > +1 - Hoping for something like this for a long while! Thanks for
> > taking
> > >> > this up all!
> > >> >
> > >> > > On May 15, 2018, at 5:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
> > >> > jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Forgot to mention the length of the vote in original message.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Let's leave the vote open for a shorter period than usual, for
> > instance
> > >> > 48 hours, i.e., till Wednesday 10pm PST. Situation can only get
> worse
> > >> than
> > >> > it is now if we do not take action for a longer period.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > As Alan suggested, vote passes if there is a lazy majority (at
> > least 3
> > >> > votes, more +1s than -1s).
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > > Jesús
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On 5/15/18, 8:37 AM, "Andrew Sherman" <asher...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >+1
> > >> > >
> > >> > >On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:34 AM Rui Li <lirui.fu...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> +1
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Prasanth Jayachandran <
> > >> > >> pjayachand...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>> +1
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> Thanks
> > >> > >>> Prasanth
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM -0700, "Jesus Camacho
> Rodriguez"
> > <
> > >> > >>> jcama...@apache.org<mailto:jcama...@apache.org>> wrote:
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were
> > >> failing
> > >> > >>> consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to
> > >> gather
> > >> > >>> support from the community to be stricter wrt committing patches
> > to
> > >> > Hive.
> > >> > >>> The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be
> > >> obtained
> > >> > >>> before committing, but there is another clause that allows
> > committing
> > >> > >> under
> > >> > >>> the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good
> as
> > >> > having
> > >> > >>> no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1
> > from
> > >> > >>> testing infra before committing.
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the
> testing
> > >> > infra
> > >> > >>> before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and 2)
> > we
> > >> > will
> > >> > >>> have another incentive as a community to create a more robust
> > testing
> > >> > >>> infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that
> are
> > >> not
> > >> > >>> flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> Please, share your thoughts about this.
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> Here is my +1.
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> Thanks,
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> Jes?s
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
> > >> > >>> mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
> > >> > >>> HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> --
> > >> > >> Best regards!
> > >> > >> Rui Li
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >Sahil Takiar
> > >Software Engineer
> > >takiar.sa...@gmail.com | (510) 673-0309
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Sergio Pena]

+1

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Gunther Hagleitner <
ghagleit...@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> +1
> 
> From: Sankar Hariappan <shariap...@hortonworks.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 9:03 AM
> To: dev@hive.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines
>
> +1
>
>
> On 15/05/18, 9:30 PM, "Sahil Takiar" <takiar.sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >+1
> >
> >On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Owen O'Malley <owen.omal...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > +1 - Hoping for something like this for a long while! Thanks for
> taking
> >> > this up all!
> >> >
> >> > > On May 15, 2018, at 5:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
> >> > jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Forgot to mention the length of the vote in original message.
> >> > >
> >> > > Let's leave the vote open for a shorter period than usual, for
> instance
> >> > 48 hours, i.e., till Wednesday 10pm PST. Situation can only get worse
> >> than
> >> > it is now if we do not take action for a longer period.
> >> > >
> >> > > As Alan suggested, vote passes if there is a lazy majority (at
> least 3
> >> > votes, more +1s than -1s).
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > Jesús
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 5/15/18, 8:37 AM, "Andrew Sherman" <asher...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >+1
> >> > >
> >> > >On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:34 AM Rui Li <lirui.fu...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> +1
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Prasanth Jayachandran <
> >> > >> pjayachand...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> +1
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Thanks
> >> > >>> Prasanth
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM -0700, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez"
> <
> >> > >>> jcama...@apache.org<mailto:jcama...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were
> >> failing
> >> > >>> consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to
> >> gather
> >> > >>> support from the community to be stricter wrt committing patches
> to
> >> > Hive.
> >> > >>> The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be
> >> obtained
> >> > >>> before committing, but there is another clause that allows
> committing
> >> > >> under
> >> > >>> the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good as
> >> > having
> >> > >>> no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1
> from
> >> > >>> testing infra before committing.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the testing
> >> > infra
> >> > >>> before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and 2)
> we
> >> > will
> >> > >>> have another incentive as a community to create a more robust
> testing
> >> > >>> infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that are
> >> not
> >> > >>> flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Please, share your thoughts about this.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Here is my +1.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Thanks,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Jes?s
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
> >> > >>> mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
> >> > >>> HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> --
> >> > >> Best regards!
> >> > >> Rui Li
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Sahil Takiar
> >Software Engineer
> >takiar.sa...@gmail.com | (510) 673-0309
>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Gunther Hagleitner]

+1

From: Sankar Hariappan <shariap...@hortonworks.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 9:03 AM
To: dev@hive.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

+1


On 15/05/18, 9:30 PM, "Sahil Takiar" <takiar.sa...@gmail.com> wrote:

>+1
>
>On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Owen O'Malley <owen.omal...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>
>> > +1 - Hoping for something like this for a long while! Thanks for taking
>> > this up all!
>> >
>> > > On May 15, 2018, at 5:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
>> > jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Forgot to mention the length of the vote in original message.
>> > >
>> > > Let's leave the vote open for a shorter period than usual, for instance
>> > 48 hours, i.e., till Wednesday 10pm PST. Situation can only get worse
>> than
>> > it is now if we do not take action for a longer period.
>> > >
>> > > As Alan suggested, vote passes if there is a lazy majority (at least 3
>> > votes, more +1s than -1s).
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Jesús
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 5/15/18, 8:37 AM, "Andrew Sherman" <asher...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >+1
>> > >
>> > >On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:34 AM Rui Li <lirui.fu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> +1
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Prasanth Jayachandran <
>> > >> pjayachand...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> +1
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Thanks
>> > >>> Prasanth
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM -0700, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez" <
>> > >>> jcama...@apache.org<mailto:jcama...@apache.org>> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were
>> failing
>> > >>> consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to
>> gather
>> > >>> support from the community to be stricter wrt committing patches to
>> > Hive.
>> > >>> The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be
>> obtained
>> > >>> before committing, but there is another clause that allows committing
>> > >> under
>> > >>> the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good as
>> > having
>> > >>> no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1 from
>> > >>> testing infra before committing.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the testing
>> > infra
>> > >>> before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and 2) we
>> > will
>> > >>> have another incentive as a community to create a more robust testing
>> > >>> infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that are
>> not
>> > >>> flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Please, share your thoughts about this.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Here is my +1.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Thanks,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Jes?s
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
>> > >>> mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
>> > >>>
>> > >>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
>> > >>> HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Best regards!
>> > >> Rui Li
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Sahil Takiar
>Software Engineer
>takiar.sa...@gmail.com | (510) 673-0309

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Sankar Hariappan]

+1


On 15/05/18, 9:30 PM, "Sahil Takiar"  wrote:

>+1
>
>On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Owen O'Malley 
>wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Peter Vary  wrote:
>>
>> > +1 - Hoping for something like this for a long while! Thanks for taking
>> > this up all!
>> >
>> > > On May 15, 2018, at 5:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
>> > jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Forgot to mention the length of the vote in original message.
>> > >
>> > > Let's leave the vote open for a shorter period than usual, for instance
>> > 48 hours, i.e., till Wednesday 10pm PST. Situation can only get worse
>> than
>> > it is now if we do not take action for a longer period.
>> > >
>> > > As Alan suggested, vote passes if there is a lazy majority (at least 3
>> > votes, more +1s than -1s).
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Jesús
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 5/15/18, 8:37 AM, "Andrew Sherman"  wrote:
>> > >
>> > >+1
>> > >
>> > >On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:34 AM Rui Li 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> +1
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Prasanth Jayachandran <
>> > >> pjayachand...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> +1
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Thanks
>> > >>> Prasanth
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM -0700, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez" <
>> > >>> jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were
>> failing
>> > >>> consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to
>> gather
>> > >>> support from the community to be stricter wrt committing patches to
>> > Hive.
>> > >>> The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be
>> obtained
>> > >>> before committing, but there is another clause that allows committing
>> > >> under
>> > >>> the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good as
>> > having
>> > >>> no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1 from
>> > >>> testing infra before committing.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the testing
>> > infra
>> > >>> before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and 2) we
>> > will
>> > >>> have another incentive as a community to create a more robust testing
>> > >>> infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that are
>> not
>> > >>> flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Please, share your thoughts about this.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Here is my +1.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Thanks,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Jes?s
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
>> > >>> mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
>> > >>>
>> > >>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
>> > >>> HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Best regards!
>> > >> Rui Li
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Sahil Takiar
>Software Engineer
>takiar.sa...@gmail.com | (510) 673-0309

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Sahil Takiar]

+1

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Owen O'Malley 
wrote:

> +1
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Peter Vary  wrote:
>
> > +1 - Hoping for something like this for a long while! Thanks for taking
> > this up all!
> >
> > > On May 15, 2018, at 5:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
> > jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Forgot to mention the length of the vote in original message.
> > >
> > > Let's leave the vote open for a shorter period than usual, for instance
> > 48 hours, i.e., till Wednesday 10pm PST. Situation can only get worse
> than
> > it is now if we do not take action for a longer period.
> > >
> > > As Alan suggested, vote passes if there is a lazy majority (at least 3
> > votes, more +1s than -1s).
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jesús
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/15/18, 8:37 AM, "Andrew Sherman"  wrote:
> > >
> > >+1
> > >
> > >On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:34 AM Rui Li 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Prasanth Jayachandran <
> > >> pjayachand...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> +1
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks
> > >>> Prasanth
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM -0700, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez" <
> > >>> jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were
> failing
> > >>> consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to
> gather
> > >>> support from the community to be stricter wrt committing patches to
> > Hive.
> > >>> The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be
> obtained
> > >>> before committing, but there is another clause that allows committing
> > >> under
> > >>> the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good as
> > having
> > >>> no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1 from
> > >>> testing infra before committing.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the testing
> > infra
> > >>> before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and 2) we
> > will
> > >>> have another incentive as a community to create a more robust testing
> > >>> infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that are
> not
> > >>> flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Please, share your thoughts about this.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Here is my +1.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>>
> > >>> Jes?s
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
> > >>> mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
> > >>>
> > >>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
> > >>> HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Best regards!
> > >> Rui Li
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>



-- 
Sahil Takiar
Software Engineer
takiar.sa...@gmail.com | (510) 673-0309

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Owen O'Malley]

+1

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Peter Vary  wrote:

> +1 - Hoping for something like this for a long while! Thanks for taking
> this up all!
>
> > On May 15, 2018, at 5:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
> jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Forgot to mention the length of the vote in original message.
> >
> > Let's leave the vote open for a shorter period than usual, for instance
> 48 hours, i.e., till Wednesday 10pm PST. Situation can only get worse than
> it is now if we do not take action for a longer period.
> >
> > As Alan suggested, vote passes if there is a lazy majority (at least 3
> votes, more +1s than -1s).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jesús
> >
> >
> > On 5/15/18, 8:37 AM, "Andrew Sherman"  wrote:
> >
> >+1
> >
> >On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:34 AM Rui Li  wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Prasanth Jayachandran <
> >> pjayachand...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Prasanth
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM -0700, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez" <
> >>> jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were failing
> >>> consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to gather
> >>> support from the community to be stricter wrt committing patches to
> Hive.
> >>> The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be obtained
> >>> before committing, but there is another clause that allows committing
> >> under
> >>> the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good as
> having
> >>> no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1 from
> >>> testing infra before committing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the testing
> infra
> >>> before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and 2) we
> will
> >>> have another incentive as a community to create a more robust testing
> >>> infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that are not
> >>> flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please, share your thoughts about this.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Here is my +1.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Jes?s
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
> >>> mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
> >>>
> >>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
> >>> HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best regards!
> >> Rui Li
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Peter Vary]

+1 - Hoping for something like this for a long while! Thanks for taking this up 
all!

> On May 15, 2018, at 5:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez  
> wrote:
> 
> Forgot to mention the length of the vote in original message.
> 
> Let's leave the vote open for a shorter period than usual, for instance 48 
> hours, i.e., till Wednesday 10pm PST. Situation can only get worse than it is 
> now if we do not take action for a longer period.
> 
> As Alan suggested, vote passes if there is a lazy majority (at least 3 votes, 
> more +1s than -1s).
> 
> Thanks,
> Jesús
> 
> 
> On 5/15/18, 8:37 AM, "Andrew Sherman"  wrote:
> 
>+1
> 
>On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:34 AM Rui Li  wrote:
> 
>> +1
>> 
>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Prasanth Jayachandran <
>> pjayachand...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Prasanth
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM -0700, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez" <
>>> jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were failing
>>> consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to gather
>>> support from the community to be stricter wrt committing patches to Hive.
>>> The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be obtained
>>> before committing, but there is another clause that allows committing
>> under
>>> the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good as having
>>> no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1 from
>>> testing infra before committing.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the testing infra
>>> before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and 2) we will
>>> have another incentive as a community to create a more robust testing
>>> infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that are not
>>> flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please, share your thoughts about this.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Here is my +1.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Jes?s
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
>>> mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
>>> 
>>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
>>> HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Best regards!
>> Rui Li
>> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Jesus Camacho Rodriguez]

Forgot to mention the length of the vote in original message.

Let's leave the vote open for a shorter period than usual, for instance 48 
hours, i.e., till Wednesday 10pm PST. Situation can only get worse than it is 
now if we do not take action for a longer period.

As Alan suggested, vote passes if there is a lazy majority (at least 3 votes, 
more +1s than -1s).

Thanks,
Jesús


On 5/15/18, 8:37 AM, "Andrew Sherman"  wrote:

+1

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:34 AM Rui Li  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Prasanth Jayachandran <
> pjayachand...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Prasanth
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM -0700, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez" <
> > jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were failing
> > consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to gather
> > support from the community to be stricter wrt committing patches to 
Hive.
> > The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be obtained
> > before committing, but there is another clause that allows committing
> under
> > the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good as 
having
> > no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1 from
> > testing infra before committing.
> >
> >
> >
> > As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the testing infra
> > before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and 2) we will
> > have another incentive as a community to create a more robust testing
> > infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that are not
> > flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please, share your thoughts about this.
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is my +1.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jes?s
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
> > mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
> >
> > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
> > HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards!
> Rui Li
>

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Andrew Sherman]

+1

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:34 AM Rui Li  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Prasanth Jayachandran <
> pjayachand...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Prasanth
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM -0700, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez" <
> > jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were failing
> > consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to gather
> > support from the community to be stricter wrt committing patches to Hive.
> > The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be obtained
> > before committing, but there is another clause that allows committing
> under
> > the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good as having
> > no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1 from
> > testing infra before committing.
> >
> >
> >
> > As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the testing infra
> > before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and 2) we will
> > have another incentive as a community to create a more robust testing
> > infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that are not
> > flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please, share your thoughts about this.
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is my +1.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jes?s
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
> > mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
> >
> > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
> > HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards!
> Rui Li
>

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Rui Li]

+1

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Prasanth Jayachandran <
pjayachand...@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> +1
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Prasanth
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM -0700, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez" <
> jcama...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were failing
> consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to gather
> support from the community to be stricter wrt committing patches to Hive.
> The committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be obtained
> before committing, but there is another clause that allows committing under
> the presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good as having
> no tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1 from
> testing infra before committing.
>
>
>
> As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the testing infra
> before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and 2) we will
> have another incentive as a community to create a more robust testing
> infra, e.g., replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that are not
> flaky, trying to decrease running time for tests, etc.
>
>
>
> Please, share your thoughts about this.
>
>
>
> Here is my +1.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jes?s
>
>
>
> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.
> mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
>
> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/
> HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Best regards!
Rui Li

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Prasanth Jayachandran]

+1



Thanks
Prasanth



On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM -0700, "Jesus Camacho Rodriguez" 
> wrote:


After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were failing 
consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to gather support 
from the community to be stricter wrt committing patches to Hive. The 
committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be obtained before 
committing, but there is another clause that allows committing under the 
presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good as having no tests, 
hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1 from testing infra before 
committing.



As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the testing infra before 
committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and 2) we will have another 
incentive as a community to create a more robust testing infra, e.g., replacing 
flaky tests for similar unit tests that are not flaky, trying to decrease 
running time for tests, etc.



Please, share your thoughts about this.



Here is my +1.



Thanks,

Jes?s



[1] 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E

[2] 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches

Re: [VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Thejas Nair]

+1

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez
 wrote:
> After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were failing 
> consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to gather 
> support from the community to be stricter wrt committing patches to Hive. The 
> committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be obtained before 
> committing, but there is another clause that allows committing under the 
> presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good as having no 
> tests, hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1 from testing 
> infra before committing.
>
>
>
> As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the testing infra 
> before committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and 2) we will have 
> another incentive as a community to create a more robust testing infra, e.g., 
> replacing flaky tests for similar unit tests that are not flaky, trying to 
> decrease running time for tests, etc.
>
>
>
> Please, share your thoughts about this.
>
>
>
> Here is my +1.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jesús
>
>
>
> [1] 
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E
>
> [2] 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches
>
>
>

[VOTE] Stricter commit guidelines

[Jesus Camacho Rodriguez]

After work has been done to ignore most of the tests that were failing 
consistently/intermittently [1], I wanted to start this vote to gather support 
from the community to be stricter wrt committing patches to Hive. The 
committers guide [2] already specifies that a +1 should be obtained before 
committing, but there is another clause that allows committing under the 
presence of flaky tests (clause 4). Flaky tests are as good as having no tests, 
hence I propose to remove clause 4 and enforce the +1 from testing infra before 
committing.

 

As I see it, by enforcing that we always get a +1 from the testing infra before 
committing, 1) we will have a more stable project, and 2) we will have another 
incentive as a community to create a more robust testing infra, e.g., replacing 
flaky tests for similar unit tests that are not flaky, trying to decrease 
running time for tests, etc.

 

Please, share your thoughts about this.

 

Here is my +1.

 

Thanks,

Jesús

 

[1] 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hive-dev/201805.mbox/%3C63023673-AEE5-41A9-BA52-5A5DFB2078B6%40apache.org%3E

[2] 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/HowToCommit#HowToCommit-PreCommitruns,andcommittingpatches