harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [vote] Declare r711744 as M8
Date Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:11:45 GMT
Yep - the new build passes the sanity tests for me.
I'll do a bit more but you can start the vote in the meantime.

Regards,
Tim

chunrong lai wrote:
>  +1 to start a vote for r713673.
> 
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Sian January
> <sianjanuary@googlemail.com>wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Chunrong.
>>
>> It looks like all the snapshots are now available and the integrity
>> tests have been run on the latest revision
>> (http://people.apache.org/~chunrong/harmony-integrity/), with the same
>> results as r711744.
>>
>> Shall we start a new vote for r713673, or does anyone need a bit
>> longer to try it out?
>>
>>
>> 2008/11/13 chunrong lai <chunronglai@gmail.com>:
>>  > Yes. It is my final version, as the option (2) we discussed before.
>>> I just checked the snapshot uploading. The linux snapshots have been
>>> uploaded while the windows snapshots have not.
>>> Thanks.
>>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> I'm just trying to figure out if r713673 is the final version from
>>>> chunrong -- then we can all be testing it again.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>> Pavel Pervov wrote:
>>>>> +1 for (2)
>>>>>
>>>>> WBR,
>>>>>     Pavel.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Sean Qiu <sean.xx.qiu@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> option 2 sounds reasonable for me, anyway quality overweigh others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 for (2) in addition to Sian's comment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2008/11/12 Sian January <sianjanuary@googlemail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Presumably with option (2) we would still run the Harmony Classlib
>> and
>>>>>>> DRLVM test suites as part of the build?  If so, then (2) would
be my
>>>>>>> preference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2008/11/12 Aleksey Shipilev <aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>> Tim, I see the good point in your explanation too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So we need to consider three options:
>>>>>>>>  Option 1. Go with r711744 as M8. It is already tested, so
just
>>>> solidify
>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>  Option 2. Fix H6013, declare r711744 + H6013 as M8, presume
the
>>>>>>>> impact locality, solidify the build.
>>>>>>>>  Option 3. Fix H6013, declare r711744 + H6013 as M8, re-spin
the
>>>>>>>> tests, solidify the build.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm voting for (3). I would be glad to be proved wrong on
my
>> concerns,
>>>>>>>> actually I would be pleased with that :)
>>>>>>>> Maybe just arrange a vote again?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Aleksey.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Tim Ellison <
>> t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Tim Ellison <
>> t.p.ellison@gmail.com
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Can you think of a situation when the null check
will introduce
>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>> instability or regression?
>>>>>>>>>> I actually persuaded by Chunrong's point -- that's
double
>> checking,
>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>> no problems should occur.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As for introducing new bugs, consider the issue described
in
>>>>>>>>>> HARMONY-6013 is really covering some other deadly
issue. Consider
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> workload where NPE is not firing because of H6013,
>>>>>>>>> ...but the test doesn't silently work without the NPE,
it causes a
>>>> trap.
>>>>>>>>> So we know that our tests don't currently cover the situation
>> where
>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> would now expect to get a NPE, or they would be trapping
today,
>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>> so after H6013 gets
>>>>>>>>>> fixed the control flow in that workload is going
differ than in
>>>> tested
>>>>>>>>>> M8. As many uses of the helper, as many the chances
the control
>> flow
>>>>>>>>>> differs. Having that, we can't say the change is
minor.
>>>>>>>>> I appreciate that the code will appear in many places,
but I think
>> it
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> localized and we know the situation doesn't occur in
current
>> testing.
>>>>>>>>> That said, I'd rather run the two days + testing again
rather than
>>>> spend
>>>>>>>>> two days arguing about it :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I will be
>>>>>>>>>> able eventually to say that similar changes are "limited
>>>>>>>>>> impact"-issues, then you should employ me as oracle
tester <g> :)
>>>>>>>>> lol
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course, that's the speculation if this is actually
a double
>> null
>>>>>>> checking.
>>>>>>>>>> I just want not to guess while talking about milestones.
>>>>>>>>> ack - like I said, if people think we should re-spin
the build and
>>>>>>>>> retest, then I'm ok with that too.  It would be the conservative
>>>>>>> approach.
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>>>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales
with
>>>> number
>>>>>>> 741598.
>>>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
>> PO6
>>>> 3AU
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Best Regards
>>>>>> Sean, Xiao Xia Qiu
>>>>>>
>>>>>> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>  Unless stated otherwise above:
>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
>> 741598.
>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>>
> 

Mime
View raw message