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: [general] freeze for M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP
Date Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:28:27 GMT
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
View raw message