harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mikhail Loenko" <mloe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] Harmony Q2 release requirements
Date Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:07:12 GMT
2007/3/5, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com>:
>
> On Mar 5, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Egor Pasko wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I have zero interest in exclusively working on Windows.  None.  Zip.
> Zero.  Nada.
>
> Linux is a peer distro for this project.  It always has been.
>
> To be an open source project that only distributes software for
> closed source ecosystems like Windows is the sort of irony I'd prefer
> not to be associated with :)

Nobody is talking about being a project for Windows only.

The idea is going deep first and extend in deapth next.

If we try to have everything before we have something we will have nothing:
if we try to have presense on each platform before we are solid on at least
one platform we will lose: for each platform there always be "another"
implementation that is better.

Instead we should stick to some specific platform, make it solid and
then extend

Thanks,
Mikhail

>
> geir
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message