harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vladimir Beliaev" <vladimir.k.beli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] freeze for M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP
Date Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:04:51 GMT
Stepan, I've checked r650380:

* 2 failures of 'update' suite is caused by invalid tests - HARMONY-5747

* 1 failure on Linux/x86 is not reproducible locally

* 2 crashes on Windows/x86 are not reproduced locally

As far as DRLVM tests is concerned, there is 1 failure on Linux/x86 in
"java.lang.reflect.MethodTest.test_getGeneric" it is not a regression since
this test was added recently (after M5) and getting it passed is the
question of "enabling" not a "no regression".

Thanks

Vladimir


2008/4/23, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com>:
>
> On 4/22/08, 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).
> >
>
> OK, freezing only verifier code can be a compromise in this case.
> But I think it makes sense for other areas to ask people not commit
> risky changes (i.e. make feature freeze and commit only bug fixes) -
> it will help with detection and resolution of possible verifier
> regressions. I believe that this acceptable too.
>
> Could I ask all folks interesting in M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP release to look
> through tests failures to understand if there are regressions in the
> verifier or not?
>
> Tests results for r650380 are almost ready [1] (testing the next
> r650564 snapshot will be launched in 2-3 hours).  If there are no
> regressions then I think r650380 (or r650564) can be promoted as
> M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP. If you find verifier regression please let
> everybody know ASAP - it should be fixed quickly.
>
> [1]
> http://people.apache.org/~mloenko/snapshot_testing/script/r650380/index.html
>
> Thanks,
> Stepan.
>
> > 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message