harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mikhail Loenko" <mloe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm] IPF functionality
Date Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:22:52 GMT
2006/10/16, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>:
> 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.

Isn't it time to define the official set of supported platforms? ;)

Thanks,
Mikhail

>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> --
>
> 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
>
>

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