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 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:41:17 GMT
I also think the diversity is generally good. Let's test Harmony on as
many platfroms as possible and find as many problems as we can. But I
also think that having at least one stable configuration is very
important for those who wants to work on the new features. Doing this
kind of work I'd prefer to have, say, 1 platfrom stable 99% of time
than 99 platforms stable 1% of time.

I deeply appreciate the responsible committers like you who test the
patches thoroughly. But the overall process seems is not perfect since
the workspace breaks up again and again. Unfortunately tightening
pre-commit criteria seems to me the only way to prevent breakage.

Thanks,
Pavel

On 10/9/06, Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9 October 2006 at 16:12, "Pavel Ozhdikhin" <pavel.ozhdikhin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/9/06, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Rana Dasgupta wrote:
> > > > We need to check both release and debug builds...the binaries and timing
> > > > characteristics are too different. At this immediate stage of the
> > > > project, I
> > > > would suggest leaving out EM64T as part of mandatory testing( unless it
i
> > s
> > > > EM64T specific functionality, eg., codegen ). Too few contributors and
> > > > committers have access to it. We are not yet at a stage where we can make
> > > > this mandatory.
> > > >
> > > > If possible all submissions should be tested( by submitters ) on all the
> > > > combinations identified . It is actually more urgent for submitters to
do
> > > > this. We should stop patches by email. Also, at this point, it is an hono
> > r
> > > > system, we can't attach 6 before and after test logs to each JIRA
> > > > submission. The committer could randomly check on one or more combination
> > ,
> > > > ...the more the better obviously.
> > > >
> > > > In some cases, submissions will be platform specific ( eg., very new code
> > > > like GC V5, platform specific bug fixes or a simple case of developer
not
> > > > having all the machines ). I would leave these to the committers'
> > > > discretion.
> > >
> > > Mandating that patches are pre-tested on a wide variety of machines is
> > > not conducive to building a broad community of contributors since very
> > > few people have access to all the machines and configurations we are
> > > interested in.  I'd much prefer that we work optimistically and have
> > > lots of people regularly building and testing the code to get the
> > > broadest possible coverage.  We can backtrack if problems arise.
>
> Agreed.  Broadest possible coverage is much more important.
>
> > Even is a committer does't have a wide variety of machines I think we
> > can still mandate that his/her commits are checked on the right
> > configuration.
>
> You'd also need to mandate linker versions and assembler versions too.
>
> > If the majority works on GCC 4.0.3 checking the patch on GCC 3.3.2
> > might not reveal the problems. Regular testing will, but the time
> > spend on backtracking is lost. The proposal is not only about variety
> > of configurations but is also about configurations themselves.  Rana
> > proposed to exclude EM64T and add debug configs, so for now the list
> > is following:
> >
> > - Windows / IA32 / MSVS .NET 2003 / release
> > - Windows / IA32 / MSVS .NET 2003 / debug
> > - Linux / IA32 / GCC 4.0.3 / release
> > - Linux / IA32 / GCC 4.0.3 / debug
> > - Linux / EM64T / GCC 4.0.3 / release
> > - Linux / EM64T / GCC 4.0.3 / debug (the last two are questionable,
> > but at least Geir has a machine)
>
> I'm a committer.  I test most patches on my ia32 thinkpad, which is
> running Debian/testing (mostly).  I've got the following compilers
> installed:
>
>  gcc-2.95
>  gcc-3.0
>  gcc-3.2
>  gcc-3.3
>  gcc-3.4
>  gcc-4.0
>  gcc-4.1
>
> It turns out that my gcc-4.0 despite belonging to a package with a
> version number of "4.0.3-3" might not be gcc-4.0.3 because "gcc -v"
> says:
>
>  gcc-4.0 (GCC) 4.0.4 20060507 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.3-3)
>
> So I guess my 4.0.3 and, for example, Geir's on ubuntu are probably
> different.
>
> I don't plan to compile a new version of 4.0.3 from fresh sources (or
> install the ubuntu version or anything like that) because:
>
> 1) I don't think it matters that much
>
> 2) Next week we'd probably find a binutils problem and I'm definitely
> not changing that.
>
> 3) I actually think diversity is ok.  I've not really seen a huge amount
> of problems with different gcc versions.  And if there are problems with
> compiler incompatibilities then I want them to receive focus quickly -
> breaking is a good way to get peoples attention.  What I'd really not
> want is for problems to go unnoticed because all the committers have
> spent time setting up their machines to be identical.
>
> > Assuming you are testing you commits on one of the machines above, do
> > you agree it make sense all committers to use the same configuration?
>
> No.
>
> > For example, if you use Linux/IA32 and another committer uses
> > Linux/IA32, do you agree that it makes sense to use the same compiler
> > versions for pre-commit testing?
>
> No.
>
> I agree that if all committers used exactly the same versions of
> compilers, linkers, etc. then we would most likely *see* fewer problems.
>
> However, I wouldn't sleep better because I'd know that the problems
> were still there waiting to bite us later.  Personally I'd rather see
> problems as soon as possible.
>
> > Contributors are still free to check their patches whenever they want
> > or don't test them at all, but they should know what to expect from
> > the committers.
>
> Why?  If a contributor submits a patch that they tested with gcc 4.0.3
> but that doesn't work for me with my gcc 4.0.[3/4] whatever it really
> is then I'm really not going to be upset about it.  It just means we've
> learnt a valuable lesson that we'd not have learnt if I was running the
> identical 4.0.3.
>
> "Contributors don't have to test their patches at all"?  I don't think
> committers should have to test them either then. ;-) <chanting>Equal
> rights for committers!</chanting>
>
>
> I tested the patch from
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-1594 on all seven of the
> compilers on my laptop (it didn't actually work on all of them but it
> did make things better).  I did this because:
>
> 1) there was a fairly high chance (compared to other patches) that this
> one was going to break compatibility with compilers since it was about
> compiler differences
>
> 2) Geir had asked that it be checked and I didn't want to break things
> for him because he's been doing so much work on drlvm recently
>
> This doesn't mean that I'm going to do that for every patch and I
> certainly wouldn't expect that kind of behaviour from all committers.
>
> I trust my fellow committers will do a reasonable amount of testing
> based on the nature of the patch.
>
> -Mark.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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