harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Oleg Oleinik" <oleg.olei...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DRLVM] General stability
Date Thu, 09 Nov 2006 09:18:47 GMT
> The key things that I believe we need to focus on are
> a) stability and
> b) completeness.
> c) reliability (which may be 'stability')

Just 2 cents - just to be clear on terms "stability" and "reliability" - we
started using them in this thread and I feel like we do not separate them.

I propose, when we are talking about "reliability" we mean:
Capability of Harmony runtime to run given workloads correctly (as it is
defined by J2SE specifications) for certain period of time.
This is interpretation of definition given by IEEE for "reliability".

There is no definition for stability in IEEE software glossary, so I propose
when we are talking about stability we mean stability of runtime / code in
time, i.e. progressing, not regressing.

In these terms I completely agree with the order.



On 11/9/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Fedotov, Alexei A wrote:
> > Alexey Petrenko wrote,
> >> The only release I can imagine is Harmony Java5SE 100% compatible.
> >> To be Java5SE 100% compatible we need TCK first.
> >
> > +1
> >
>
> Yes - and I still think that talk of a release is a bit premature right
> now.
>
> The key things that I believe we need to focus on are
>
> a) stability and
>
> b) completeness.
>
> c) reliability (which may be 'stability')
>
> (and not always in that order :)
>
>
> Things I'd like to see us do :
>
> 1)  We need to drive to fully working unit tests for both DRLVM and
> classlib  (using DRLVM).  Great progress has been made in this area, and
> we should probably make this a "campaign" for DRLVM as we did for
> classlib.
>
> 2) Add stress tests
>
> 3) Get our CC-based build-test framework patched and running on as many
> platforms as possible, reporting breakage into the list.
>
> 4) Identify problem areas and focus on them.  For example, threading in
> DRLVM...
>
> I do think of us having a 'zero regression' policy except in cases where
> we make the explicit decision to break.  (like we did with TM, for
> example)
>
>
> > I hesitate to say that again, but we also need to decide about VM we
> > will use for that release. I like the following mission: "Class library
> > and DRLVM pass TCK on Ubuntu 6". I'm open for any other mission which is
> > challenging, understandable and short enough.
>
> Well, we'll need Windows XP and RHEL as well.
>
>
> >
> > Writing down this mission certainly shouldn't inhibit individuals from
> > achieving other goals at Harmony. But it would help the rest of
> > community to concentrate on the common task.
> >
> > 1.
> > http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Platforms_to_Run_Harmony_Development_Kit_
> > on
> >
> > With best regards,
> > Alexei Fedotov,
> > Intel Java & XML Engineering
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Alexey Petrenko [mailto:alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 10:36 AM
> >> To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [DRLVM] General stability
> >>
> >> 2006/11/8, Mikhail Fursov <mike.fursov@gmail.com>:
> >>> On 11/8/06, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Probably it's time to create some release plan :)
> >>>>
> >>> So let's start this discussion?
> >>> Good idea!
> >>> The only release I can imagine is Harmony Java5SE 100% compatible.
> >> To be Java5SE 100% compatible we need TCK first.
> >> So we could think about some less impressive goal for the first release
> > :)
> >> SY, Alexey
> >
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message