harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ray Chen <clrayc...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Next milestones: 5.0M16 and 6.0M4
Date Tue, 14 Dec 2010 01:55:29 GMT
Hi Tim,
I think I understand now, we should fix it before the code freeze.
Currently, let's just move the target out to a later date.

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13/Dec/2010 15:49, Ray Chen wrote:
> > Hmmm... OK, let's deferring that to the next milestone.
>
> If it wasn't fixed before the code freeze, then there needs to be a good
> reason why it is being fixed during the testing and publication period.
>  It's the only way we can get stability during testing -- otherwise the
> code is changing and we never converge on a milestone.
>
> If you think this needs to be fixed, just say why, otherwise we'll move
> the target out to a later date.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 13/Dec/2010 15:40, Ray Chen wrote:
> >>> FYI.
> >>> This defect should be fixed in this milestone, see
> >>> http://s.apache.org/harmony/roadmap mentioned by Mark
> >>
> >> I see it is targeted to this milestone, I'm questioning whether that is
> >> correct.
> >>
> >> Why do you think it needs to be fixed now rather than deferring to the
> >> next milestone?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Tim
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 13/Dec/2010 08:23, Ray Chen wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Comitters,
> >>>>> I have reviewed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-6656,
> >>>> seems
> >>>>> look good.
> >>>>> I remember that there should be at least two committers to agree
to
> >> apply
> >>>> a
> >>>>> patch during code freeze time, right?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Does anyone else can help to review this patch?
> >>>>
> >>>> During freeze time we only apply patches that are resolving blocking
> >>>> issues for the release to ensure we retain stability.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is this a regression from behavior that worked in the 5.0M15
> milestone?
> >>>> (I don't think so) or is it a major failure that means we should
> restart
> >>>> testing?
> >>>>
> >>>> I suggest this may be a candidate for defering until the next
> milestone.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Tim
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
Regards,

Ray Chen

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message