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: [general] freeze for M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP
Date Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:51:59 GMT
Tim,



I'm sorry the following was not transparent in my previous correspondence.
We've been able to talk around requirements of a binary build and switch to
an unmodified source re-use. Hope, both communities would benefit from this.



But unfortunately Eclipse community imports only "officially released" third
party components. This means that just a revision number is not sufficient.
The number should have an official name given by Harmony committers
providing an additional insurance of the import quality. That is why we
cannot make our request in a way which does not affect an official Harmony
schedule.



The end of this week is a deadline for any third party contributions for
this year. I'd appreciate if you'll be able to find opportunity to ship a
special release for TPTP.



Vasily


On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alexei Fedotov wrote:
>
> > As far as I understand Eclipse IP committee needs a revision number to
> > be supplied (no binaries involved).
> >
>
> Apologies, I missed that point in the discussions around compiler level
> etc.  If it is simply a well-defined revision of the verifier code then that
> is quite different.
>
>  The favour Vasily is asking about
> > is providing him with a slightly tested revision. This would suppress
> > a normal work of committers for one day. Is it something we cannot
> > afford?
> >
>
> Of course, in that area of the code I think it is quite reasonable.  It
> would not prevent people working in the other areas of Harmony (such as GC,
> JIT, and class library).
>
> Of course, we cannot prevent the revision number of the entire repository
> changing over time, but you could nominate a givne revision number for the
> verifier code to be taken by Eclipse.
>
> Did I understand this right?
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
>
>
>  On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm really not convinced this is a good idea for Harmony, and my
> > > concerns
> > > are in two parts:
> > >
> > >  1) Our schedule should not be dictated by an external project,
> > > especially
> > > when it is their process that seems to be setting the artificial time
> > > limit.
> > > Why not show some flexibility to meet our dates?
> > >
> > >  2) Our principle delivery mechanism is source code.  While we make
> > > binaries
> > > available as a convenience we should not encourage dependents to put
> > > dependencies on our build tools.  They should take source and compile
> > > it
> > > themselves for their own environment.
> > >
> > >  Regards,
> > >  Tim
> > >
> > >  Vasily Levchenko wrote:
> > >
> > >  $subj.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >


-- 
--vvl

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