Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of stepan.mishura@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.82.237 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=d8cNEXGlOGNLkrtFfQYBH2TGsWWEoBWIl+ZGWRuhC8yJ0q3BRLmBJ4BbrOHObwpPQfELzZEVdavjopkJ7CpNf2osDxoZNnCFUTkXX9JSamJGa1KotZ88kvLzvyFtaIcqrldZGgDvyE2HglgE12CjGphS85FSIJAgEREDQMcmGcI=
Message-ID: <6e47b64f0804232201v46385348s9d9fe389fb7ddc88@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:01:22 +0700
From: "Stepan Mishura" <stepan.mishura@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [general] freeze for M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP
In-Reply-To: <c30d70960804232154n78f68a7ei9c2bb848ba0b1565@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <14ecfd680804220324u15cf64c4w1d10274460553f6e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <480DC6F6.4000006@gmail.com>
	 <c30d70960804220419w19184b0fm497d9fe83658440d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <480DD4AA.3000409@gmail.com>
	 <6e47b64f0804222028k312e532dpefa9a36a198cc41f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c30d70960804231441m7d33f1c1j4fe8a425977c6f6f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <6e47b64f0804231957v1b568be9uf03d54a1ec52c94b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c30d70960804232154n78f68a7ei9c2bb848ba0b1565@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/24/08, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stenan,
> Sorry. I have fixed VTS verifier test failures:
> http://people.apache.org/~smishura/r650380/Windows_x86/vtsvm/junit/index.html
>

So all 15 tests failed because of this bug. Correct?

-Stepan.

> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Stepan Mishura
> <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Alexei,
> >
> >
> >  On 4/24/08, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  > Hello Stepan,
> >  >
> >  > I have fixed more verifier failures, see
> >
> >  Which failures did you fix? HARMONY-5785 description doesn't mention any.
> >
> >  -Stepan.
> >
> >
> >
> >  > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5785
> >  >
> >  > Thanks!
> >  >
> >  > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Stepan Mishura
> >  > <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  > > 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.
> >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > > > >
> >  > >  > > >
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  >
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > --
> >  > With best regards,
> >  > Alexei
> >  >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> With best regards,
> Alexei
>