harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] freeze for M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP
Date Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:06:02 GMT
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.
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message