harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vasily Levchenko" <vasily.v.levche...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Releasing scheduling
Date Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:22:34 GMT
Greetings,
We've finally established source base and launched our test, demonstrating
stability and reliable of verifier code. would you mind to initiate with
releasing milestone HDK-M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP?

As I've mentioned earlier but wasn't able point to JIRA (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5750) we're extremely
interested this patch to be included.

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 4/14/08, Vasily Levchenko <vasily.v.levchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Stepan Mishura <
> stepan.mishura@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > As I understood the thread it is doable to make interim release
> > > targeted to assist inclusion of Harmony verifier to the nearest
> > > Eclipse TPTP release. Let me share my understanding of the request and
> > > a possible way to resolve it (please correct me if I'm wrong): The
> > > Eclipse team needs an 'official' (i.e. published on the web-site as
> > > milestone build) Harmony release. The Eclipse team only interesting in
> > > changes in verifier since M5 so the main criteria for the interim
> > > release is no regressions in verifier functionality (i.e. I assume
> > > that not critical regressions are acceptable for interim release. I
> > > believe that is important for having a shorten freeze/test/release
> > > period for the interim release)
> > >
> > > So I think we may consider:
> > > - making sure that all artifacts required are in place (i.e. committed
> > > to the trunk)
> > > - declaring short code freeze
> > > - running testing cycle to see if there are any issues with verifier
> > > and overall code.  (BTW, are there any know issues with verifier that
> > > needs to be fixed?)
> > >
> > > Having said that I thought that we are testing up to 6 snapshots per
> > > week so we may pick up any interim snapshot that has everything
> > > required and shows good testing results, make it 'official' - i.e.
> > > publish it ... with proper label - M5.5_Eclipse or something else to
> > > avoid confusions and to state clearly that the release it targeted to
> > > the Eclipse TPTP release.
> > >
> > > Does it make sense and works for all parties?
> > >
> > > The only issue that still unclear for me is ABI requirements: has the
> > > Harmony team build/test the code to satisfy ABI or you can do it?
> > > (Alexey Petrenko asked this before but I don't see any answer)
> >
> >
> > I suppose we can do it, but it should be in the released package too. If
> > we're going to share building of the module how it will looks like?
> > 1. you'll give us revision
> > 2. and we'll return the compiled libraries
> >
> > or some other way?
> >
>
> OK as I see from your answer - the Harmony team has to build binaries
> that satisfy ABI (because we publish binaries that are created only by
> Harmony committers.)
>
> -Stepan.
>
> <SNIP>
>



-- 
--vvl

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