Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of mloenko@gmail.com designates
 66.249.92.175 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=UP/0eUGNmqrgMza7MQb4tZnmPH+7sHO15j2663RE+LzlczDhParHYfIUm7uxvj7OrMlf54itfkOXQ5RiLiN3QC2hfTpMVOi+v29/HK9Sqc3meA1zoaekltcBkvUyArEHZQij70YYFwhs5Pn6Zit+oUyzDip3JtOh08oTjfDO5F8=
Message-ID: <906dd82e0612140237n7ed14630ve0db9d04ef0ae0a6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:37:55 +0600
From: "Mikhail Loenko" <mloenko@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [vmi] Retrieving system properties
In-Reply-To: <6e47b64f0612140225ib2b7d72ia10770f09947c9ab@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <6e47b64f0612122227p9371022h3e98701c8caf2d82@mail.gmail.com>
	 <45800501.4080208@gmail.com> <elp12d$upt$1@sea.gmane.org>
	 <458019CD.7040406@gmail.com> <45802805.4080307@googlemail.com>
	 <45803B1D.80401@gmail.com>
	 <f944d83d0612132322t4bbd6847gfe8bf27defd85356@mail.gmail.com>
	 <45811BC0.2030209@gmail.com>
	 <f944d83d0612140151u447582feu46a1e199e631f202@mail.gmail.com>
	 <6e47b64f0612140225ib2b7d72ia10770f09947c9ab@mail.gmail.com>

+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
>
>