From dev-return-38831-apmail-harmony-dev-archive=harmony.apache.org@harmony.apache.org Sat Jan 23 05:49:32 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 28780 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2010 05:49:31 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 23 Jan 2010 05:49:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 45383 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jan 2010 05:49:31 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@harmony.apache.org Received: (qmail 45239 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jan 2010 05:49:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@harmony.apache.org Received: (qmail 45215 invoked by uid 99); 23 Jan 2010 05:49:30 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 23 Jan 2010 05:49:30 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of wuyuehao@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.184 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.184] (HELO mail-px0-f184.google.com) (209.85.216.184) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 23 Jan 2010 05:49:23 +0000 Received: by pxi14 with SMTP id 14so1323197pxi.20 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:49:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=M+ek7/tE7UbnXIbOfNHfMY9/2wDcTpoXBTd++cZo7tI=; b=xNvbbXPiU8Nt2LzB+gTBXX9cpM9SbUaplZO3aBlYWTHoJbI8E5RrNAuvWijxQb8tnf sQyb67wmbRbN3Eya7LG8S6627gYTUt2gdc9xw6xmKUWUvOeCgAnKiRg8LxDJtJ/QaAIQ u0TSe8RiccUREIlDdzaq03Qoji9QdkJEBEHA0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=TBIdc0MLVnzw0R0vntF2yJKxT3BEaz9vYAtIqY4KpceDlAmDRqOCMbL2py0hORR7Jn Urp6GGmAuWJyc3ItajCbCEszb8KX0dj0iGFL4Ama52cUhGdVWariGDc7pjAmwGFjp4pS YB09q/B+v4hk4kcXetAZP8M4npoeX7QUoW5F0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.248.16 with SMTP id v16mr2340202wah.161.1264225743318; Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:49:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4d9fb1a01001210611j320f01cdj837b009333637b3f@mail.gmail.com> References: <201001200947.o0K9lxZx026868@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <4d9fb1a01001200154u780476d6k570d6bb3516ba880@mail.gmail.com> <201001201118.o0KBIciS000715@d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <4B585D8C.5050508@googlemail.com> <4d9fb1a01001210611j320f01cdj837b009333637b3f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 11:19:03 +0530 Message-ID: <211709bc1001222149r132d8ba0nc876ed8b95c764e2@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Postpone java6 milestone release From: Tony Wu To: dev@harmony.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Agree. The test on my laptop is not so good yet. On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Ray Chen wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Oliver Deakin > wrote: >> On 20/01/2010 11:18, Mark Hindess wrote: >>> >>> In message<4d9fb1a01001200154u780476d6k570d6bb3516ba880@mail.gmail.com>= , >>> Ray >>> Chen writes: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi Mark, >>>> >>>> I have a question, what conditions should java6 satisfy so that we can >>>> release it? >>>> >>> >>> We'll follow the same process as we do for java5/trunk. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> All the tests passed? :) >>>> >>> >>> That would be nice, but we don't hold the java5 releases to that >>> standard so I see no reason to apply it to java6. >>> >> >> Agreed - I think getting the M1 for java6 into a position where we can a= gree >> that the failing tests are not blockers for release is really what we're >> aiming for. I've just had a look in JIRA at the bugs targeted for 6.0M1 = and >> I only see 1 result, HARMONY-6330. One thing that I think is important f= or >> us to get the M1 release out the door is to have a realistic set of bugs= in >> JIRA to represent the current state of the build and I don't think that = is >> true at the moment. I'm rerunning the 6.0 tests on the latest federated >> build - I'll post the results here once I have them and I aim to raise J= IRAs >> for all the failures (and fix some if I can) so we have a reasonable vie= w of >> what is required to reach M1. >> >> Regards, >> Oliver >> >>> Regards, >>> -Mark >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Mark Hindess >>>> =A0wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Since we are not making much progress towards a java6 milestone relea= se >>>>> and the code has been frozen for much too long, I think we should >>>>> abandon the idea and postpone the release until we do the next java5 >>>>> milestone. >>>>> >>>>> If no one speaks up against this, then I will send a mail declaring t= he >>>>> code freeze over tomorrow. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not convinced having the milestones offset by a week really helps >>>>> much and suggest that next time we do a milestone release for java5 w= e >>>>> do a java6 release at the same time. =3DA0(I'm not convinced this wil= l >>>>> work >>>>> either but it can't really be worse so I think we should try it.) >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> -Mark. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --=3D20 >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Ray Chen >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Oliver Deakin >> 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 3= AU >> >> > > > > -- > Regards, > > Ray Chen > --=20 Tony Wu China Software Development Lab, IBM