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 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:20:17 GMT
On 4/24/08, Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > We ask another project to be more flexible but we are not ready to be
> > flexible too - we scheduled M6 to mid of May and we couldn't move it
> > to the end of April.
> That is unfair.  That is not what I've said.  I did not say we couldn't
> move the M6 release date.  I've not stated an opinion on that one way
> or the other.  However, my statement about "voting -1 for any formal
> release that isn't simply the next milestone" was intended to allow for
> this possibility.

Mark, I didn't mean to blame you. When I said 'we' I meant all Harmony
contributors. The issue from my POV is not your '-1 vote' but that 2
weeks was not enough for us to reach consensus about this request. I
predict that in the future there will be similar requests and I'd like
to see us ready for them and be more flexible in such cases.

> > We are discussing the request almost for 2 weeks (this time is enough
> > to make full milestone testing cycle) and I've not heard any strong
> > argument for having it in mid of May expect that we scheduled it to
> > this date. ;-(
> Moving our milestone doesn't necessarily imply more work for everyone
> while doing an extra release certainly does.  Hence I am more flexible
> about the former.  The latter seems like another project forcing us to
> do more work to get around their inflexible policy which is definitely
> wrong to me.

I don't see the situation in this way. 'Forcing' for me means that
someone came to me with a gun and I don't have any choice. In this
case with verifier & Eclipse I would say that there is the request for
cooperation/help/assistance (I don't know with word suits better
here). And I agree that it is a late call and sure they should also be
more flexible too if they want the verifier in the next their release.

But what concerned me in this situation that we (including me too)
were not able to work out quickly common position and were not able
IMHO to handle the request in the prover way.


> I hope that is clearer and makes you a little less sad.
> Regards,
> -Mark.

View raw message