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: [general] aiming no regression
Date Fri, 01 Dec 2006 12:04:05 GMT
Rana Dasgupta wrote:
> Mikhail,
>   Please see below...
> On 11/30/06, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >4) We have cruise controls running classlibrary tests on DRLVM. We
>> >need to decide what will we do when DRLVM+Classlib cruise control
>> >reports failure.
>> >IMHO It's pretty obvious that before we have found a commit causing that
>> >we stop further commits.
> We can try and see how this works. It is important to reduce regressions,
> but depending on the time it takes to find the truant commit, repeated
> failures could literally stop new commits for a very long timetime. I think
> that 0 regression periods can exist in a project, but it cannot be zero
> regression always. However, I am perfectly OK with declaring a zero
> regression period for a trial period of a few weeks.

I agree.  We need a balance between making good progress and retaining
stability.  Clearly we all wish to see zero regressions on every hourly
build, but in practice it may be more productive to live with a breakage
and work through a problem to resolve it on the trunk code, or identify
it as provoking a bug in another component and flagging it there, rather
than stopping the world.

It's a judgement call for sure dependeing upon the seriousness of the
breakage.  I think we have been doing quite well at it, though we did
have a 'broken' period recently that was IMHO uncomfortably long (about
a week?).

As you say, it may make sense to have agreed stability periods, lasting
a week or so, where we focus explicitly on solidifying what we have got
in preference to adopting new functionality.  It will be good practice
for approaching a real release when we get to that point.



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

View raw message