harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexey Petrenko" <alexey.a.petre...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] Harmony Q2 release requirements
Date Tue, 06 Mar 2007 09:13:48 GMT
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