harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sian January" <sianjanu...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [build?] Problem with snapshot build or download page?
Date Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:19:25 GMT
I agree with EHWA, and I don't feel that strongly either way about jdktools
if you think it's achievable to get it back to green on those two platforms
fairly soon.  I was going to offer to investigate the jdktools failures
today, but looking at the report it looks like it's in the VM area (a
debugging problem?) and I'm afraid I would be totally out of my depth
there.  Is anyone else able to volunteer?

Thanks,

Sian


On 19/10/2007, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/18/07, Sian January <sianjanuary@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Stepan,
> >
> > Thanks for your reply.  Yes - I was meaning successful as not only
> compiled
> > succesfully but passed all the required tests.  Required tests would be
> a
> > set of tests that we aimed to be GREEN all the time.  Then if something
> is
> > checked in that breaks one of these tests it would either be fixed
> fairly
> > quickly (say within a day or two?) or rolled back.  We could publish any
> (or
> > every) build that passed this subset, which should mean that there's
> never a
> > long period of time without a build being published.
> >
> > I think this would also help with reducing the freeze period for a
> milestone
> > because it would mean we would never get too far away from something
> that's
> > working, so stabilization would be easier.  It's also easier to fix
> > something that's just been committed than something that you did 2 or 3
> > months ago.
> >
> > I like the suggestion of using the integrity suite as a start - it seems
> > like a good basic set of tests to aim for. But if you don't think it's
> > realistic to keep these green most the time during a development cycle,
> then
> > maybe just start with the classlib, drlvm and drlvm-regression
> tests?  These
> > are all green at the moment on 32-bit Linux and Windows and I think the
> > Harmony community is already quite good at trying to keep those tests
> > passing.
> >
>
> I agree with 32-bit Linux and Windows platforms. But I think that a
> set of suites should include Eclipse Hello World Application (EHWA)
> suite and may be jdktools too. Say if EHWA is broken than most
> probably that there is serious regression. And IMHO such build
> shouldn't be published as users build - it can not run simple Eclipse
> scenario.
>
> Thanks,
> Stepan.
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sian
> >
> >
> >
> > On 18/10/2007, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 10/17/07, Sian January <sianjanuary@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > That's good - it sounds like we are aiming for the same thing after
> > > all!  It
> > > > would be nice if this could be automated at some point, so
> successful
> > > builds
> > > > are published automatically.  Also should the build be considered
> broken
> > > if
> > > > we have an unsuccessful build?  It just seems to me like something
> is
> > > wrong
> > > > if there hasn't been a 'successful' build for more than 2
> weeks.  What
> > > do
> > > > you think?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Sian,
> > >
> > > Do you mean 'successful'=='tested' build?
> > >
> > > I agree that we need to work out a criteria for publishing tested
> > > builds for users. Of cause if everything became GREEN on the testing
> > > page then the build is published as users build. But it is not so
> > > probable to see during active code development. Also I agree that we
> > > should define time frame - if we can not publish users build for a
> > > long time that we need to stop and fix all failures. I'd suggest to
> > > use a set of suites run by integrity testing [1]. So if classlib
> > > tests, drlvm and drlvm-regression tests, jdktools and Eclipse hello
> > > world application pass on snapshot testing them we publish the build.
> > >
> > > [1] http://people.apache.org/~varlax/harmony-integrity/
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Stepan.
> > >
> > > <SNIP>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> > 741598.
> > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
> 3AU
>



-- 
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message