harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Xiao-Feng Li" <xiaofeng...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] freeze for M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP
Date Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:31:57 GMT
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Vasily Levchenko
<vasily.v.levchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim,
>
>
>
>  I'm sorry the following was not transparent in my previous correspondence.
>  We've been able to talk around requirements of a binary build and switch to
>  an unmodified source re-use. Hope, both communities would benefit from this.
>
>
>
>  But unfortunately Eclipse community imports only "officially released" third
>  party components. This means that just a revision number is not sufficient.
>  The number should have an official name given by Harmony committers
>  providing an additional insurance of the import quality. That is why we
>  cannot make our request in a way which does not affect an official Harmony
>  schedule.
>
>
>
>  The end of this week is a deadline for any third party contributions for
>  this year. I'd appreciate if you'll be able to find opportunity to ship a
>  special release for TPTP.
>

Then let's do it.

Thanks,
xiaofeng

>
>  Vasily
>
>
>
>
>  On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:06 PM, 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).
>  >
>  > 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.
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>
>
>  --
>  --vvl
>



-- 
http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com

Mime
View raw message