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 10:57:33 GMT
I agree with you 100%.  I think the problem is that we aren't always 
reacting to the CC messages.

As a good example of when things went right - when I broke the build 
when I changed the structure of the deployed stuff in DRLVM 
(lnx.../deploy/jdk...), Gregory told me onlist what he found, and I went 
and did the fixes - immediate response, targetted fix...

geir

Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> I mean revert as few as possible changes (ideally one single commit)
> causing failure.
> 
> 2006/12/14, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com>:
>> What do you want to roll back?  Everything since that point in time?
>>
>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>> > +1 for rolling back the changes.
>> >
>> > We shoud aim 100% of up-time. If the build is working
>> > we can do further work, test and commit the changes, etc
>> >
>> > Let's roll it back so that other people who work on
>> > the project could continue
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Mikhail
>> >
>> > 2006/12/14, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com>:
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Stepan Mishura
>> >> Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
>> >>
>> >>
>>

Mime
View raw message