harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [vmi] Retrieving system properties
Date Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:41:17 GMT

Stepan Mishura wrote:
> On 12/14/06, Alexey Varlamov wrote:
>> 2006/12/14, Tim Ellison :
>> > Alexey Varlamov wrote:
>> > > Fixed svn as agreed, both classlib and drlvm impl.
>> >
>> > Given it a VMI modification I would like to have had a more coordinated
>> > change, so the IBM VME can be changed too.  We are also trying to get a
>> > snapshot out so this would be one I would defer until that is done.
>> AFAIU the snapshot is pointless if taken from broken repository state.
>> All CC systems were FAILED for > 2 days, since the initial
>> modification which provoked this discussion. I presume it is important
>> enough to get back to PASSED status quickly.
> I support Alexey's point here.

I don't think that anyone is debating the goodness of getting things 
fixed.   Thats clear.  The problem is that the I still don't believe 
that the VMI thing was a fix, but rather a tweak to get rid of an 
ambiguity in the API.

So... what was FAILING the CC?

> Sorry for being annoying but can not really understand what is the problem
> here with restoring things as they were before CC went down. And after
> that we can work out an appropriate solution and coordinate a change 
> without
> hurrying.

I agree that things should be fixed ASAP, but I still think that we're 
confused about what the problem is.  I don't agree that a massive 
rollback whenever we see a CC failure is the right thing to do, given 
the cascading problems that can create.

Maybe an improvement in process is when there's a CC failure, someone 
investigate and simply report to the dev list what's going on.  I think 
that's one of our problems right now...  we're not engaging together on 
the CC problems...


> Thanks,
> Stepan.
> Besides my speculation
>> was that current agreement reflects IBM VME behavior too so it does
>> not require urgent update.
>> >
>> > Geir has some further questions on the rationale for the change.  Let's
>> > give it more than 24hrs for agreement before committing.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Tim
>> >
>> >

View raw message