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 Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:31:29 GMT
Hello folks,
Have you got any updates about commitment of
H-5750<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5750>.


About testing.
We've discussed it with some folks, but I don't know how it complex for
testing system of Harmony.
Actually the functionality we need is used for recalculating stack maps
after instrumentation. There is a subproject of TPTP called Probekit that
injects probes into compiled code. But for re-calculation requires valid JNI
pointer (you can find some details in
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=148629). So minimize test it
possible re-use static instrumentator with introduced in the same bugzilla
java6 support but for static instrumentation.

Is it ok with you?

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Nathan, thanks for a question!
>
> > Is VS6 needed to appropriately test this issue [1]? [...] are there
> specific tests that could be run to get a general
> > assurance of the passivity?
>
> I was asking Vasily to prepare at least one stand-alone test to be
> included (by me) in a Harmony test base. While the whole TPTP requires
> VC6, I believe I will be able to recompile the only test with a newer
> compiler.
>
> With best regards, Alexei
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org> wrote:
> > Is VS6 needed to appropriately test this issue [1]? I'm not intimate
> with
> >  the verifier; are there specific tests that could be run to get a
> general
> >  assurance of the passivity?
> >
> >  -Nathan
> >
> >  [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5750
> >
> >  On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Vasily Levchenko <
> >
> > vasily.v.levchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > 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<
> https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&to=stepan.mishura@gmail.com>
> >  > >
> >  > wrote:
> >  >
> >  > > On 4/14/08, Vasily Levchenko <vasily.v.levchenko@gmail.com<
> https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&to=vasily.v.levchenko@gmail.com
> >>
> >
> > > wrote:
> >  > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Stepan Mishura <
> >  > > stepan.mishura@gmail.com<
> https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&to=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
> >  >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> With best regards,
> Alexei
>



-- 
--vvl

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