hadoop-yarn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sangjin Lee <sj...@apache.org>
Subject [YARN-2928] rebasing to trunk
Date Tue, 13 Oct 2015 01:02:55 GMT
Hi folks,

I have completed the rebase of YARN-2928 (this time cherry-picks really) to
the trunk as of last Saturday. I resolved 10 merge conflicts most of which
were minor. But I do want to call out a few of them, and would like you to
review how I resolved those conflicts before I make the rebase official. I
have just pushed this new branch ("*YARN-2928-rebase*") so you can take a
look at it. I'll swap the branches once we're satisfied.

The following are those commits to review. I called out those who might be
best to review the merges.

[3e3a8fe: Junping]
Trunk added a new use (in TestContainerResourceIncreaseRPC
<https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/trunk/hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-common/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/TestContainerResourceIncreaseRPC.java#L99>)
of a method (TestRPC.newContainerToken) in TestRPC which we moved from
yarn-common to yarn-server-common. I copied that method in
TestContainerResourceIncreaseRPC. We could reconsider whether we want to
move TestRPC from yarn-common to yarn-server-common. I don't recall the
details of the discussion, but was there a strong reason to move TestRPC
out of yarn-common? If trunk keeps creating new uses of this class, it
might be a problem.

[d35d861: Naga]
Trunk added a new RM event type (app updated: YARN-4044
<https://github.com/apache/hadoop/commit/a9aafad12b1d2f67e55e09a6fa261d61789c9d7e>).
I applied the same changes and moved code to
AbstractTimelineServicePublisher, TimelineServiceV1Publisher, and
TimelineServiceV2Publisher respectively. Naga, could you please confirm if
that new event is done right in the merge commit?

[bd5af9c]
It turns out HDFS-9080 broke the HBase mini-cluster, which in turn broke
our HBase-based unit tests. This was caught by HDFS-9187 which has a patch.
The patch is not entirely correct (causes NPEs), and I applied a fixed
version of that patch to our branch to ensure our tests pass. Let me know
if you are OK with that. I don't think we can wait until HDFS-9187 gets
resolved.

If you could take a look at these commits, and let me know +1/-1, I'll be
able to take the next steps. Thanks everyone!

Regards,
Sangjin

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message