river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Creswell <dan.cresw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Remaining Work For Next Release
Date Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:15:18 GMT
I think there are some other things we might consider:

(1) Do the tests in question always fail and only on SPARC?

(2) Do the tests in question contain any SPARC specific code?

(3) Does the code being tested contain any SPARC specific code?

(4) How many cores are available on the SPARC's in question vs other
machines we test on?

Answering the above helps us understand whether we have a general issue or a
SPARC-specific issue. If it's SPARC-specific and none of our code is
SPARC-specific that points at environmental problems (OS patches, JVM
version etc). Would we hold up a release then? Would such a problem be a
River bug let alone a new River bug?


On 1 April 2011 11:05, Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> wrote:

> What is the definition of "new"? Remember we added a lot of QA tests that
> were not being run previously, so for most QA tests we do not know whether
> they would have passed on an earlier release.
>
> If we can define "new" as being since some specific subversion check-out,
> we can build that on a SPARC and see whether the failing test passes on it
> or not.
>
> Patricia
>
>
>
> On 4/1/2011 2:40 AM, Tom Hobbs wrote:
>
>> I think themost important question is "have we introduced a new bug?". If
>> the answer is yes, then it becomes more difficult to justify a release.
>>  But
>> depending on the likely impact of that bug (we could ask on users@) a
>> release might still be justifiable.
>>
>> If the answer is no, I see no obvious reason to delay a release for it.
>> Especially given that the impact seems limited.
>>
>

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