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 Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:50:24 GMT
2007/3/6, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com>:
>
> On Mar 5, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>
> > 2007/3/5, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com>:
> >>
> >> On Mar 5, 2007, at 3:53 AM, 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.
> >>
> >> That was a long distance guess, not The Law :)
> >>
> >> Now that we are closer, we probably need to re-assess.  For example,
> >> I'd much rather see a sequence of "developer releases" leading up to
> >> our 1.0, whenever that will be, with each dev release building on the
> >> last.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> Absolutely.  I thought that is what we're doing already :)
> >>
> >>
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> Yes
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >>
> >> I have no idea what that means.  We still need to continue completion
> >> - our goal is a compatible implementation of Java SE 5, so we need to
> >> continue working in that direction.
> >
> > The direction is diverse. We may try to do everything at once
> > but may do some things first and some - next. They call it
> > priorities :)
>
> Priorities are fine - but the goal is Java SE 5, so we should then
> simply prioritize our path to that goal.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 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)
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 2) running 2-3 open source server-side software
> >> >
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 3) running 2-3 open source developers tools
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 4) setting up necessary testing infrastructure and having near 100%
> >> > pass rates for the suites we have
> >>
> >> Sure, and this is already in progress.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 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?
> >>
> >> Again, I don't support the idea of One Big Q2 release.  I'd rather
> >> see us setup a sequence of developer releases making incremental
> >> improvement.
> >
> > I'm not against that sequence. But we should have something for which
> > we will say that it's able to do this and that. We want be able to
> > provide
> > good documentation for each release in the sequence. We will release
> > something better tested, better documented, etc than just a release
> > in the sequence. This will be a Q2 release.
>
> I think that each release should be well tested and documented.  We
> should do the release train, with each release getting better and
> better - no regressions unless we all agree there's a darn good
> reason for it.

What would be the interval between the releases in the "train"?
If it's 3 months then yes we can have such a train. If it's a week then
we all will be busy with releases and won' have time for coding

Thanks,
Mikhail


>
> >
> >> >
> >> > Since currently the most stable platform is Windows/IA32 I suggest
> >> > that Harmony Q2 will be released on that specific platform
> >>
> >> Of course win32, but we also need to do the release on at least one
> >> flavor of linux.
> >
> > Of course. But not necessarily at the same time.
>
> Sorry - I disagree with you.  I really think that we need to have a
> release for not just the windows platform.  Our best chance for
> widespread distribution is going to be linux.  There are multiple
> packaging streams we can take advantage of (apt, rpm, yum, whatever
> Suse uses...) to get our software out in front of users that need a
> free/open Java runtime.  Clearly microsoft isn't going to help us
> here, and the windows crowd doesn't care as much about having a free/
> open runtime to use.
>
> Lets be strategic about this.
>
> geir
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mikhail
> >
> >
> >>
> >> geir
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Opinions?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Mikhail
> >> >
> >> > [1] http://harmony.apache.org/roadmap.html
> >>
> >>
>
>

Mime
View raw message