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 Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:49:48 GMT
On 4/18/08, Vasily Levchenko <vasily.v.levchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello folks,
> Have you got any updates about commitment of
> H-5750<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5750>.
>
>
> About testing.
> We've discussed it with some folks, but I don't know how it complex for
> testing system of Harmony.
> Actually the functionality we need is used for recalculating stack maps
> after instrumentation. There is a subproject of TPTP called Probekit that
> injects probes into compiled code. But for re-calculation requires valid JNI
> pointer (you can find some details in
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=148629). So minimize test it
> possible re-use static instrumentator with introduced in the same bugzilla
> java6 support but for static instrumentation.
>
> Is it ok with you?
>

I don't know what exactly did you imply by saying "how it complex for
testing system of Harmony". From you wrote above my impression that
you can not provide "specific tests" right now.

And we are going to run 'standard' set of suites to verify the change.

FYI: the first test results of committing HARMONY-5750 is failed
EHWA_API (integrity testing) on all platforms in all testing modes. It
potentially may mean that there are serious issues with the update.
Could you look into [1]?

[1] http://people.apache.org/~varlax/harmony-integrity/linux_x86/ehwa-api/execution_log.html

Thanks,
Stepan.

> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Nathan, thanks for a question!
> >
> > > Is VS6 needed to appropriately test this issue [1]? [...] are there
> > specific tests that could be run to get a general
> > > assurance of the passivity?
> >
> > I was asking Vasily to prepare at least one stand-alone test to be
> > included (by me) in a Harmony test base. While the whole TPTP requires
> > VC6, I believe I will be able to recompile the only test with a newer
> > compiler.
> >
> > With best regards, Alexei
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org> wrote:
> > > 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
> > >  >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > With best regards,
> > Alexei
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --vvl
>

Mime
View raw message