harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nathan Beyer" <ndbe...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Releasing scheduling
Date Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:27:12 GMT
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
>

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