Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of mloenko@gmail.com designates
 64.233.162.225 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=HouormSudA6Tu87thnW5ZCNwY5UJfIkwcx8XXZVOty22wdXtf6KQ5blRT0T5MmHONC9QtlS7Hj4tfoZo0nEbFXj04LfrXN/5W8MVRSeyU2us2FDNrXlBqVsuiH9ANIWXiP1Se8qrdTJ39pEdY1mq+Y0LdpxsmR9Mb94Ig/OgWdE=
Message-ID: <906dd82e0703060317h5ec22795o1f7062887f58fabf@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 17:17:35 +0600
From: "Mikhail Loenko" <mloenko@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [general] Harmony Q2 release requirements
In-Reply-To: 
 <523F3D8D8C97554AA47E53DF1A05466AAE356E@nnsmsx411.ccr.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <c3755b3a0703060113v2ce5259r54a487a5925e60ea@mail.gmail.com>
	 <523F3D8D8C97554AA47E53DF1A05466AAE356E@nnsmsx411.ccr.corp.intel.com>

+1

Thanks,
Mikhail

2007/3/6, Morozova, Nadezhda <nadezhda.morozova@intel.com>:
> 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
>