harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mikhail Loenko" <mloe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] M3 milestone discussion
Date Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:09:55 GMT
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%.

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.
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). 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.

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


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