harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Morozova, Nadezhda" <nadezhda.moroz...@intel.com>
Subject RE: [general] Harmony Q2 release requirements
Date Tue, 06 Mar 2007 10:27:18 GMT
Hi,
Since the discussion is going on actively, I've thought of gathering the
ideas and publishing on wiki.  What do you say?

Cheers, 
Nadya
 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alexey Petrenko [mailto:alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 12:14 PM
>To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [general] Harmony Q2 release requirements
>
>2007/3/5, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com>:
>> 2007/3/5, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com>:
>> > 2007/3/5, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com>:
>> > > 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? :)
>> > No objections! :)
>> > We definitely need a milestone since milestones helps to keep us
and
>> > Harmony in good shape.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > 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?
>> >
>> > I think that we also need performance targets: run some benchmarks
and
>> > demonstrate reasonable results.
>> > We are using Dacapo and SciMark now [1].
>>
>> Agreed, we definitely need performance goals
>>
>> >
>> > Do we need some additional benchmarks? And what will the reasonable
>> > target results?
>>
>> No worse than RI 6.0 ? Do you think we can achieve that in Q2? :)
>I think that this can be achieved for a limited set of benchmarks.
>
>SY, Alexey

Mime
View raw message