harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Egor Pasko <egor.pa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] Harmony Q2 release requirements
Date Mon, 05 Mar 2007 11:31:14 GMT
On the 0x290 day of Apache Harmony Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> 2007/3/5, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com>:
> > 05 Mar 2007 12:30:05 +0300, Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com>:
> > > On the 0x290 day of Apache Harmony Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > > > According to our high-level roadmap [1] we were going to make our
> > > > first release in Q2. Let's define what we would like to see in our Q2
> > > > release. If there are no objections let's discuss what we want that
> > > > release being able to do.
> > > >
> > > > I suggest that we focus on stability measured by being able to
> > > > successfully run a few solid applications and by pass rates for the
> > > > test suites.
> > > > So, I think in Q2 we should 1) run reasonable set of applications 2)
> > > > have reasonable testing infrastructure and 3) pass reasonable set of
> > > > test suites.
> > > >
> > > > Though we will be happy to accept all the patches that fix existing
> > > > problems or add missing functionality, I suggest that people who hang
> > > > around will focus on those scenarios that we will choose here
> > > >
> > > > Objections? :)
> > > >
> > > > If there are no objections again, I'd like to propose that we will target:
> > > >
> > > > 1) keeping all the enabled apps in the "up" state
> > > > (we will create a list of enabled apps and put them all into cruise control)
> > > >
> > > > 2) running 2-3 open source server-side software
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 3) running 2-3 open source developers tools
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 4) setting up necessary testing infrastructure and having near 100%
> > > > pass rates for the suites we have
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 5) what about commercial software? Some time ago we agreed that it's
> > > > OK to report failures/regression of commercial software. Should we
> > > > have them in the "requirements" to our Q2 release?
> > > >
> > > > Since currently the most stable platform is Windows/IA32 I suggest
> > > > that Harmony Q2 will be released on that specific platform
> > >
> > > you mean, we have no time for 2 platforms?
> >
> > I mean we should IMHO make a focus: have superb results on a single
> > platform on a limited set of applications rather than have million
> > somehow working scenarios
> > on a dozen of platforms.
> 
> Does it make sense?

I think, limiting ourselves for the next milestone is a good
idea. Though, IMHO, limiting ourseles to windows is more of a
limitation than of making us focused. It does not take much effort to
support Linux with te same priority of bugfixing (if scenarious are
pretty automated), but lets people be sure that we are not to break
their work in favour to support windows faster.

There may be a hybrid strategy: improve on windows, do not break
anything on Linux, seems pretty acceptable to me.

-- 
Egor Pasko


Mime
View raw message