Have we agreed (and stated it somewhere proper) that a -1 obtained for
a Windows CI build for a test-patch will not block the ongoing work
(unless it is Windows specific) and patches may still be committed to
trunk despite that?
I'm +1 if someone can assert and add the above into the formal
guidel
+1 (non-binding),
Windows support is attractive for lots users.
>From point a view from Hadoop developer, Matt said that CI supports
cross platform testing, and it's quite reasonable condition to merge.
Thanks,
Tsuyoshi
Thanks Harsh.
I have a few more questions.
Q1: I found it in my experiments using CS that for any user , its next job
does not start until its current one is finished. Is it true and are there
any exceptions and if true then why is it so? I I did not find any such
condition in the implementation
Didn't I explain in details what I am asking for?
Thanks,
--Konst
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Matt Foley wrote:
> Hi Konstantin,
> I'd like to point out two things:
> First, I already committed in this thread (email of Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at
> 6:01 PM) to providing CI for Windows builds. So
Hi Konstantin,
I'd like to point out two things:
First, I already committed in this thread (email of Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at
6:01 PM) to providing CI for Windows builds. So please stop acting like
I'm resisting this idea or something.
Second, you didn't answer my question, you just kvetched about the
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Jagmohan Chauhan wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am going through the Capacity Scheduler implementation. There is one
> thing i did not understand clearly.
>
Are you reading the YARN CapacityScheduler or the older, MRv1 one? I'd
suggest reading the newer one for any implementa
