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 16:40:01 GMT
Thank you Pavel,

I've tested with the verifier functionality. And found that it's met our
requirements.
So could you please initiate short code freeze and proceed to releasing of
milestone M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 8:14 PM, Pavel Pervov <pmcfirst@gmail.com> wrote:

> Vasily,
>
> HARMONY-5750 changes are in trunk.
>
> Pavel.
> On 4/18/08, Vasily Levchenko <vasily.v.levchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Pavel Pervov,
> Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
>



-- 
--vvl

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