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 17:01:03 GMT
On 4/18/08, Vasily Levchenko <vasily.v.levchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you Pavel,
>
> I've tested with the verifier functionality. And found that it's met our
> requirements.
> So could you please initiate short code freeze and proceed to releasing of
> milestone M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP
>

I've looked into EHWA-API failure - I see that the root exception is
java.lang.VerifyError. So from my POV this is a serious regression in
verifier - one of basic testing scenarios is broken. And I think that
it needs to be fixed before freezing the code and starting snapshot
testing.

What do you think?

Thanks,
Stepan.

> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 8:14 PM, Pavel Pervov <pmcfirst@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Vasily,
> >
> > HARMONY-5750 changes are in trunk.
> >
> > Pavel.
> > 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?
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pavel Pervov,
> > Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --vvl
>

Mime
View raw message