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 M2 schedule
Date Tue, 05 Jun 2007 06:10:34 GMT
M2 - good!
2 weeks feature freeze - OK.

05 Jun 2007 09:06:48 +0400, Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com>:
> On the 0x2EC day of Apache Harmony Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > Let's have end of month (June, 30?) as a release date. Now we need to
> > define a date for code freeze (when only critical bugs are fixed) and
> > define how we will commit between code freeze and release (each commit
> > approved by one more committer?)
>
> one should be enough. I think, the common process should be well
> applicable here: we will have comitter responsibility, discussions
> over dev@, etc. No reason for tight commit process, IMHO.
>
> Tightening commit criteria requirements (that you are proposing) is good.
>
> > I think the code freeze date should depend on the longest test cycle
> > we have (I've seen somewhere about 48-hour scenarios?) and be ~2-3
> > cycles (1 week?) prior the release.
> >
> > We also need a feature freeze date (1-2 weeks prior code freeze?) when
> > no major changes or redesigns are allowed.
>
> reasonable, thanks
>
> 2 weeks for feature freeze before M2 should be OK, IMHO
>
> > And we need to set up requirements for the release. We already see a
> > good wish-list here. The only concern I have is that its focus is
> > almost everything: stability, performance, and completeness. Though I
> > completely agree with each of these directions, I have a feeling that
> > having everything in focus means not having a focus.
> >
> > So I propose that we go this way: we have directions, we already
> > discussed them many times. Now let's create requirements based on the
> > list of directions: *each person who adds something to requirements is
> > committing to and will be responsible for meeting that requirement*
> >
> > The requirements could be to have something specific in stability,
> > have something specific in performance, completeness, java6, etc
> >
> > Once we compose a list, say 1..N of requirements, we create keys or
> > tags for JIRA, say M2-REQ1, ..., M2-REQN and mark bugs affecting
> > requirements with these key words. So each person would easily find
> > bugs affecting requirements he is responsible for.
> 1. why numbering? let it be descriptive requirement names. Example:
> M2-req-stable-linux-x86_64-regression-tests
It depends on where these tags will be used. If it will be a usual key
for summary field like [luni] or [java6] then such a long key will be
not very usable...

> 2. why req tags for JIRA? Does this help committers to follow their
> areas of responsibility? If so, they could, please, please, speak
> up. I thought, all guys follow their bugs, have reasonable priorities
> regarding them, etc, etc.
Such tags will help requirements tracking and will describe why
specific JIRA marked as blocker for M2.

About M2 marking... Can we create something like "Target milestone"
field in our JIRA with predefined values?

> Requirement proposals?
Some obvious proposals:
1. All the Harmony tests are passed (class library + vm, excluding
excluded tests)
2. Harmony works OK with Eclipse (as M1 does)

Eclipse tests?

SY, Alexey

Mime
View raw message