harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] M3 milestone discussion
Date Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:33:50 GMT
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> 2007/8/22, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>:
>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>> Basing on M2 experience I think 2-mo is a too short for Harmony:
>>> 25% of the whole time we would have our workspace somehow frozen.
>>> And we couldn't shorten freeze time since we have long running
>>> suites and scenarios.
>> That's not my memory, looking back in the list you froze the code on 24
>> June, and unfroze it on 30 June.
> There was also "feature freeze" message on June, 14th. So it's not 10%.

Rather than get into a debate about the %'s, let's decide whether we
have the right balance between open development and ensuring
stability/demonstrating progress.

I'm sure we agree that we would like to minimize the disruption on
on-going development, but agree that we need these stability
checkpoints.  This (thread) is the first time I see a call for longer
open development periods.

> We need that length of time to run
>> tests and check stability as you mention, but it was more like 10% which
>> I think is reasonable given our current state.
>>> IMHO it negatively affects progress of the project.
>>> So I'm +1 for having fixed schedule, but 2-mo schedule does not leave
>>> enough time for normal development
>> Can you explain what you mean here?  I see lots of 'normal development'
>> taking place, with hundreds of commits in each milestone.
> We declare that our milestone builds are "best so far". That actually mean
> that we should not have (at least known) regressions.


> We have a huge amount of tests and it's impossible to run them all
> before each commit. For that reason many commits introduce regressions.

Well hopefully not 'many commits' but it is a possibility yes<g>

> Now the question is what %% of time we may focus on development of new
> features vs time on fixing regressions. Basing on CC results, it might take
> up to 2-3 weeks to fix regressions introduced by a commit (some scenarios are
> down for even longer time).

Is that because people are not looking at the CC results and fixing
them, or that we are short of machines to crunch through the scenarios?

> So that actually mean that in the 2-mo schedule
> we may do full-swing development during ~1 month, do very careful development
> 2 more weeks, and be mostly blocked 2 remaining weeks.

If we have introduced regressions, then fixing them in those two weeks
would seem like a good idea rather than continued open development.  How
long do you think is a reasonable time to let regressions ride?

> This is what I see in VM, API is definitely different: most changes are rather
> isolated.

We can certainly tweak the current practice if people feel it is
inhibiting the progress they could be making, I just want to ensure we
are not trading stability for more hacking :-)


> Thanks,
> Mikhail
> For sure,
>> there is a balance between getting work done and ensuring that we don't
>> go too long without a stability check.  Can you describe any piece of
>> work that has been negatively affected?
>> Regards,
>> Tim

View raw message