harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Fedotov" <alexei.fedo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Releasing scheduling
Date Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:34:35 GMT
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

Mime
View raw message