harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pavel Ozhdikhin" <pavel.ozhdik...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
Date Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:07:32 GMT
On 10/7/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin <pavel.ozhdikhin@gmail.com> wrote:
> What would you do if you need to commit a patch to some Linux-specific
> code in VM?
> The commit criteria my be either as simple as a list of configs or
> have also some exclusions. For example, there is no much sense to test
> on Linux a patch for a source file which is not even compiled on
> Windows.

I meant "not even compiled on Linux", of course. :)

>
> On 10/7/06, Nathan Beyer <nbeyer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I only have Windows/MSVC2003/IA32, if you're looking for anecdotal evidence.
> >
> > On 10/6/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin <pavel.ozhdikhin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Alexey,
> > >
> > > No, I'm not sure the committers have all the configurations. I think
> > > most of all have Windows and Linux IA32, but I doubt all of them have
> > > EM64T. This is indeed the problem and I hope together we will find the
> > > solution. For example, we may not require classlib commits to be
> > > tested on EM64T for now, or check if Apache has machines for testing,
> > > or we'll have a magic tool which will run EM64T tests for all
> > > committers on some hidden machine etc. If finally we realize that it's
> > > impossible to require EM64T testing at this time, we can delay this
> > > particular config, but regarding remaining criteria I think we can
> > > avoid many problems using primary target configs.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Pavel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/6/06, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Pavel,
> > > >
> > > > Your idea has sence. But... Are you sure that all the committers has
> > > > all the mentioned configurations?
> > > >
> > > > SY, Alexey
> > > >
> > > > 2006/10/6, Pavel Ozhdikhin <pavel.ozhdikhin@gmail.com>:
> > > > > Hello all,
> > > > >
> > > > > This thread is about a way to improve stability in the environment
of
> > > > > growing patch flow in Harmony. Originally I though about DRLVM issues
> > > > > but this may be helpful for classlib too.
> > > > >
> > > > > Currenly, before committing a patch a committer checks it on his
> > > > > favorite configurations (I mean architecture, OS and compiler first
of
> > > > > all). Another committer checks another patch on a different set of
> > > > > configurations. As a result, though both patches are tested, there
is
> > > > > no guarantee that they will work together on any configuration.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we agree on common testing configs we can make sure the Harmony
> > > > > will be stable on at least this set of configurations. This does
not
> > > > > mean we won't fix problems on other configurations. The goal is to
> > > > > gain and maintain general stability.
> > > > >
> > > > > Another benefit would be in faster adoption of patches. If
> > > > > contributors could check their patches on the same configs as the
> > > > > committers do, there would be less likely a particular patch is
> > > > > rejected.
> > > > >
> > > > > I propose to work out a set of configs the committers will use to
> > > > > check patches before committing them to SVN. We can start with a
few
> > > > > configs defining the platform, OS familly and the compiler used.
When
> > > > > we are sure the Harmony is stable we can add more configurations.
IMO,
> > > > > it would be reasonable to start with 3 configurations - one
> > > > > configuration for each supported platform, for example:
> > > > >
> > > > > - Windows / IA32 / MSVS .NET 2003 / release
> > > > > - Linux / IA32 / GCC 4.0.3 / release
> > > > > - Linux / EM64T / GCC 4.0.3 / release
> > > > >
> > > > > There may be a contrary point - let's everyone use it's own platform
-
> > > > > such way we'll discover bugs earlier. I think this might work good
in
> > > > > a smaller project. The Harmony is quite a big child already and trying
> > > > > to kill all the birds we may chase them for ages.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd be happy if we converge on the set of our primary target configs
here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you
> > > > > Pavel Ozhdikhin
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Alexey A. Petrenko
> > > > Intel Middleware Products Division
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> >
> >
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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


Mime
View raw message