harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stepan Mishura" <stepan.mish...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Releasing scheduling
Date Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:15:52 GMT
On 4/14/08, Vasily Levchenko <vasily.v.levchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Stepan Mishura <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>

Mime
View raw message