By the way, when we do merge votes, I was under the impression that we do two separate votes for trunk and branch-2. While we were discussing merging to branch-2 in this thread, the vote was only for trunk. I was hoping to exercise my opportunity to -0 on the branch-2 vote :)
In the future, can we please stick to our usual approach of filing a vote for each branch please? On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Wangda Tan <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Chris for the suggestions, > I think we need a couple of weeks to finish end-to-end test, doing this is > majorly to avoid painful of resolving conflicts in the scheduler side. > In any case, will avoid doing this in the future. > > Regards, > Wangda > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Chris Douglas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Catching up on this thread. I'd missed Wangda's comment. This was > > merged without testing it end-to-end? And backported to branch-2? > > > > I share Karthik's reservations. This is a very aggressive merging > > strategy. Every other feature merged to branch-2 must also help > > stabilize YARN-1197. Going through the patch, the particular changes > > are not terribly threatening and the passing unit tests are > > encouraging. However, a few days' delay to test the feature is not > > asking much, particularly when you have reason to be confident in its > > stability. > > > > -0, after the fact. -C > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Wangda Tan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Trunk build seems stable now after the merge. A couple of yarn trunk > > builds > > > also ran fine such as: > > https://builds.apache.org/job/Hadoop-Yarn-trunk/1169/ > > > . > > > > > > I've merged this into branch-2 so as to minimize YARN dev effort across > > > branches as per the discussion thread of YARN-1197 merge. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Wangda > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Wangda Tan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> Thanks Karthik, > > >> > > >> Doing end-to-end test as well as regression test is the top priority > of > > >> this feature. Will keep you updated. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Wangda > > >> > > >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Karthik Kambatla <[email protected] > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> I did skim through the patch before voting :) > > >>> > > >>> As I mentioned earlier, I understand vast majority of the code is net > > new, > > >>> and the likelihood of breaking changes is low. Still, I would like > for > > us > > >>> to be more careful and run some end-to-end and regression tests > before > > >>> including this in a release. While I won't block the merge to > branch-2, > > >>> will be a -1 on cutting a release without due testing. > > >>> > > >>> At the risk of digressing, I also feel branch-2 should be in a > > releasable > > >>> state more often than not. The only way to bring any cadence and > > >>> predictability to our releases is by maintaining branch-2 in such a > > state. > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Wangda Tan <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > Hi Karthik, > > >>> > > > >>> > Let me elaborate more to make you feel better of this change, don't > > be > > >>> > scared by the size of the patch :) > > >>> > > > >>> > Common RM/Scheduler part: > > >>> > - AbstractYarnScheduler new logic only. > > >>> > - AppSchedulingInfo new logic only. > > >>> > - RMContainer / RMNode state machine, new logic only > > >>> > - SchedulerApplicationAttempt / Allocation, refactoring to existing > > >>> > reservation logic so increase request reservation can reuse it, and > > >>> > refactored to simply updating container token / pull container part > > so > > >>> > increase/decrease/new-allocation can reuse same code. > > >>> > > > >>> > FairScheduler: > > >>> > - Small change since we updated how to pull container updated > token. > > I > > >>> > believe it will be a straightforward change for you if you take a > > closer > > >>> > look at it. > > >>> > > > >>> > CapacityScheduler: > > >>> > - Most changes are separate logic or small refactorings, most > complex > > >>> > allocation logic stays within IncreaseContainerAllocator.java. > > >>> > > > >>> > Please let me know where you want to get more details of > > >>> implementations. > > >>> > > > >>> > I strongly suggest you to take a glance at the diff, we have > already > > >>> worked > > >>> > on the merge for the past one week, and we've paid a lot of extra > > time > > >>> to > > >>> > keep YARN-1197 sync with trunk in the past several months. After > this > > >>> merge > > >>> > finished, a couple of weeks needed to finish end-to-end test and > some > > >>> other > > >>> > extra tests, it won't affect our upcoming branch-2 release. > > >>> > > > >>> > I would not prefer to merge to trunk only, all people working on RM > > side > > >>> > will be affected, we're very carefully avoid such divergence of RM > in > > >>> > trunk/branch-2. Since nobody wants to create two different patches > > for > > >>> > every RM changes. And also, after this finished, other efforts can > > >>> happen > > >>> > in parallel such as YARN-4091. > > >>> > > > >>> > Let me know if you have any other questions/concerns. > > >>> > > > >>> > Thanks, > > >>> > Wangda > > >>> > > > >>> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Karthik Kambatla < > > [email protected]> > > >>> > wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > > I am sorry, but merging a potentially disruptive change to > branch-2 > > >>> > without > > >>> > > end-to-end tests seems too disruptive to me. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > I do agree with you on the potential inconvenience of having to > > post > > >>> > > different patches for trunk and branch-2, but I would rather have > > that > > >>> > > inconvenience than the risk of merging something that hasn't been > > >>> > > thoroughly tested. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Wangda Tan <[email protected] > > > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Hi Karthik, > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Thanks for comments! However, I think only merge to trunk may > not > > >>> work, > > >>> > > > this patch involves thousands lines of code changes in > scheduler > > >>> side, > > >>> > > only > > >>> > > > putting that to trunk could lead to trunk/branch-2 totally > > >>> incompatible > > >>> > > for > > >>> > > > resource manager. I think most of the code changes are new to > > >>> scheduler > > >>> > > > instead of modifying existed logic, they're not very tricky to > > me. > > >>> And > > >>> > > when > > >>> > > > 2.8 will be released is not planned yet, at least we have a > > couple > > >>> of > > >>> > > > months to make sure this feature becomes usable and not cause > > >>> existing > > >>> > > > behavior regressions. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Sounds good to you? > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Wangda > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Karthik Kambatla < > > >>> [email protected]> > > >>> > > > wrote: > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > +1 on merging to trunk. It would be nice to have some amount > of > > >>> > testing > > >>> > > > > done before the merge, but I understand how merging to trunk > > would > > >>> > > likely > > >>> > > > > speed up the testing efforts. > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > Let us not merge into branch-2 until after we have done a > fair > > >>> bit of > > >>> > > > > testing, and are comfortable including it in a release. While > > the > > >>> > code > > >>> > > > > mostly appears to not mess with existing scheduling logic, I > am > > >>> > > concerned > > >>> > > > > about regressions to existing scheduling behavior. > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Karthik Kambatla < > > >>> > [email protected]> > > >>> > > > > wrote: > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > By the way, for the purposes of merge vote, I believe a > > >>> committer's > > >>> > > > vote > > >>> > > > > > is binding. So, Wangda and Zhihai's votes should be > binding. > > :) > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Zhihai Xu < > > [email protected]> > > >>> > > wrote: > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> +1 (non-binding) > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> thanks > > >>> > > > > >> Zhihai Xu > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:10 AM, Xuan Gong < > > >>> > [email protected]> > > >>> > > > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > +1 Binding > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > Thanks > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > Xuan Gong > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 12:03 AM, Junping Du < > > >>> [email protected] > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > wrote: > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > +1. (Binding). > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > Junping > > >>> > > > > >> > > ________________________________________ > > >>> > > > > >> > > From: Wangda Tan <[email protected]> > > >>> > > > > >> > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 3:19 AM > > >>> > > > > >> > > To: [email protected] > > >>> > > > > >> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Merge YARN-1197 container resize > > into > > >>> > trunk > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > +1 (non-binding), > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > Thanks Jian starting this thread. This can minimize > > effort > > >>> of > > >>> > > > works > > >>> > > > > >> > across branches. > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > To clarify, this feature is end-to-end code > completed, > > we > > >>> > have > > >>> > > > API, > > >>> > > > > >> > rm/nm implementations patches committed, but we haven't > > >>> tested > > >>> > it > > >>> > > > > >> > end-to-end. Filed YARN-4175 to create an example program > > to > > >>> test > > >>> > > it > > >>> > > > > >> > end-to-end. > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > Regards, > > >>> > > > > >> > > Wangda > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > >> On Sep 16, 2015, at 6:30 PM, Jian He < > > [email protected] > > >>> > > > >>> > > > wrote: > > >>> > > > > >> > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > >> Hi All, > > >>> > > > > >> > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > >> Thanks Meng Ding and Wangda Tan for all the hard > work ! > > >>> > > > > >> > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > >> I would like to call a vote to merge YARN-1197 > > container > > >>> > resize > > >>> > > > > into > > >>> > > > > >> > trunk. > > >>> > > > > >> > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > >> Key idea: > > >>> > > > > >> > >> This feature adds the ability for AM to change > > container > > >>> > > resource > > >>> > > > > >> size > > >>> > > > > >> > at runtime. > > >>> > > > > >> > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > >> Details: > > >>> > > > > >> > >> - This feature is tracked at > > >>> > > > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-1197 > > >>> > > > > >> > >> - It’s currently developed at a separate branch: > > >>> > > > > >> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop/commits/YARN-1197 > > >>> > > > > >> > >> - A uber patch( > > >>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-4157 > > >>> > > ) > > >>> > > > > >> > generated from YARN-1197 to run against trunk shows all > > unit > > >>> > > tests > > >>> > > > > have > > >>> > > > > >> > passed. > > >>> > > > > >> > >> - This feature now can work end-to-end. > > >>> > > > > >> > >> - All the unresolved jiras under YARN-1197 will be > the > > >>> next > > >>> > > > step. > > >>> > > > > >> > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > >> Thanks, > > >>> > > > > >> > >> Wangda Tan & Meng Ding & Jian He > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >
