harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm] IPF functionality
Date Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:39:55 GMT
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>> 2006/10/16, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>:
>>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>> > When we bring new platforms how will we make sure that a patch for
>>> some
>>> > rare platform would not break another one?
>>> Beyond sniffing the patch to ensure it looks reasonable, the best a
>>> committer can do is to test it on the platforms he or she has available.
>>>  After that we rely on the diversity of the community building and
>>> testing the code to catch any problems; i.e. the change doesn't
>>> necessarily end with the commit, it may still have to be backed out.
> And the hope is that we'll have the project's CI system running on lots
> of places.
>> How will we define which changes should be backed out?
>> Do you mean that we first define list of "supported" platforms
>> and then we will roll back all the changes that reportedly break
>> build on one of that platform?
> Yes - I think that we'll eventually get to that state formally, and
> we're there now informally.  I suspect that a change to support IPF that
> broke x86 would be backed out w/o a complaint :)

Yes, and we've seen that working in practice.

>> What would be the procedure to add a new platform to the list of
>> supported ones? (Well I assume it's a vote, but what are the criteria
>> to be used in that vote?)
> I think that having "criteria" for use in a vote misses the point -
> because otherwise we'd determine based on the criteria and not need to
> vote.
> I think that it will be based on having people interested in working on
> it and size of user population.  If we decide that we're going to
> support a platform, it's a lot of work we're taking on....

Exactly.  Even for esoteric platforms if we can make it work we should
do so -- i.e. it would always be preferable to move forward by fixing
the code for all platforms than backing out.

This is a problem we don't have at the moment, so I'm not convinced it
is worth hypothesizing a solution.



Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.

Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org

View raw message