Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 78414 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2007 05:26:02 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Apr 2007 05:26:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 75174 invoked by uid 500); 9 Apr 2007 05:26:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@harmony.apache.org Received: (qmail 75137 invoked by uid 500); 9 Apr 2007 05:26:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@harmony.apache.org Received: (qmail 75125 invoked by uid 99); 9 Apr 2007 05:26:06 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 08 Apr 2007 22:26:06 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=10.0 tests=MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of mloenko@gmail.com designates 209.85.132.251 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.132.251] (HELO an-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.132.251) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 08 Apr 2007 22:25:59 -0700 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b2so1583409ana for ; Sun, 08 Apr 2007 22:25:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ar3F6YbpsyeQNmIJrhbQeR8wtAicB/s/JO/FKoQ1vEbxkInR7ikho8DobU6xbyxOUh4vN3/zAWXmG1Zy+WGVmyfgdRONFj36HoZcnqi5TPQlyRXqLTB4/cnmOfDaOJk9eiars0uzWrcrmYakckkb4VRnNFCaszR1lkW9SCjjke0= 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=SLEx/OOdInZDQgLcbvuh+R+xoS2CeNg8SBV52zarrL+stTkBiw+I+uPv11Rjsb2s5ZaFdqY/NvpU3eAR/0HmuINv836nhhoCclN1UMuBs7VouDhdh+RhU//GXbfbyYVxHlpfFRudKOTT9EeJhif8Mbbnl6+wPL/L/256XJaKNpk= Received: by 10.100.91.6 with SMTP id o6mr3686726anb.1176096338450; Sun, 08 Apr 2007 22:25:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.33.18 with HTTP; Sun, 8 Apr 2007 22:25:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <906dd82e0704082225j76e775fbp370df0e998db9797@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:25:38 +0700 From: "Mikhail Loenko" To: dev@harmony.apache.org Subject: Re: [OT] JFYI: Dave Gilbert (jfree.org) on Apache Harmony In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <0vq3b3cf1ir.fsf@gmail.com> <4d0b24970704080043p4ac8dc0o40e721f66d3eab00@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org +1 for starting branch 6 I did not understand when we'll have to run testcases for both branches Thanks, Mikhail 2007/4/9, Leo Li : > In my opinion, it is the time for us to catch up with Java 6 in order to > attract our potential customers. > > As for branching, almost each apache project maintains branches and they all > live well.:) > > And the patch convention, I agree with Paulex that : > 1. If a patch can be applied on branch 5, apply it on branch 5. > 2. If it cannot, there are two reasons, i think > (1) new features on Java 6: Just add it on branch 6. > (2) Conflicting specs or RI' behaviors between Java 5 and Java 6 : We > need to investigate them whether it is not an expected behavior in java 5 or > just some implementation details. If it is, modify branch 5. Or else just > apply it on branch 6, which is regarded as an exception. And modify the > testcases if necessary. > > Merge branch 5 to branch 6. > > Before each patch is applied, run testcases for branch 5 and branch 6 to > avoid regression. > > > On 4/9/07, Yang Paulex wrote: > > > > 2007/4/8, Andrew Zhang : > > > > > > On 4/8/07, Mikhail Fursov wrote: > > > > > > > > Bloggers blog while developers work :) > > > > > > > > > > > > I like we pushed RI to become open source. I like our scores in > > > benchmarks > > > > and I like our plans on stability improvements for the next quarter. > > > > > > > > > Ya, but we need to do something more to prove that Harmony is not only > > > toy. > > > > > > One thing I agree with the blog is about "branch". We need to think more > > > about branch. > > > > > > It's easy to use branch, but porting back fix and merge sound like > > > nightmare > > > to me. > > > > > > It's tedious, but not nightmare :) > > > > Maybe we can define some conventions to follow, for example, all bug > > fixing, > > if applicable to both version, should go to Java 5 branch at first, and is > > merge to java 6 branch later; similarly, if for some reason, Java 6 need > > some refactory on original code base, we need to think about if it is > > possible to refactor on Java 5 code base at first. In one word, try to > > merge > > in single way instead of double way. Basically Java 6 is a superset of > > Java > > 5, so hopefully we don't need much things to merge back. > > > > > > What I really miss is an absence of Geir in our mailing list last weeks... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 07 Apr 2007 23:05:48 +0400, Egor Pasko > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > $subj: > > > > > http://jroller.com/page/dgilbert?entry=the_death_of_apache_harmony > > > > > > > > > > entitled: > > > > > The Death of Apache Harmony > > > > > > > > > > Just to let you know, and no comments. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Egor Pasko > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Mikhail Fursov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Andrew Zhang > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Paulex Yang > > China Software Development laboratory > > IBM > > > > > > -- > Leo Li > China Software Development Lab, IBM >