river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter <j...@zeus.net.au>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Was: Re: [VOTE] Theory based development
Date Wed, 22 Jan 2014 01:40:09 GMT
I can only give you my own thoughts and experiences, others may think differently.

The current codebase was created through an experimental development process by Sun, it hadn't
been compiled and tested on Java 5 until River took ownership.  The code's now a tad on the
brittle side, fixing something simple, often reveals unrelated latent bugs.  A change in JDK
version is also doing exactly that right now, see our windows 2008 JDK7 Jenkins build, 45
test failures.  - Don't deploy on Java 7 yet is my advise.

To change the codebase to a more theory driven design, means fixing code that works good enough,
which also causes latent bugs to manifest.

Making such a transition means fixing a lot of non compliant code, or releasing with some
failing tests and risk latent bugs manifesting during deployment.  Out of interest, Porter
(Jini 2.1) was released with some tests disabled, including a stress test for Outrigger, StressTestInterleaved,
that test now passes on qa_refactor.

The benefit of these changes is more robust easier to maintain and develop code.  

The risk is we might unintentionally break something.

This is one of those cases, where it's easy to criticise, but hard to do.

The River community has spoken with their silence on this occassion.  

Unless some discussion indicates otherwise, I intend to let the River community decide when
it's ready to integrate fixes from qa_refactor and will no longer be looking to merge and

For that reason, I also reccommend reverting trunk, with the exception of Sim's recent work,
which I have peer reviewed.



----- Original message -----
> Given the number of users on this mailing list, and the tiny number of
> votes, it seems that many people are abstaining.
> Why is this such a touchy issue?
> --
> Dawid Loubser <dawid@travellinck.com>
> Op Ma, 2014-01-20 om 09:25 -0500 skryf Greg Trasuk:
> > On Jan 20, 2014, at 3:00 AM, Peter Firmstone <jini@zeus.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Greg,
> > >
> > > We need to define the terms of reference for our discussion of
> > > proposed changes.   We need to avoid emotive arguments, like
> > > “complete red herring”, “cascade of further failures” and “sweeping
> > > changes”.   I believe a much greater risk is not fixing issues, I
> > > believe I can demonstrate that, given the opportunity.   I also
> > > encourage all who are interested to become involved.
> > >
> > > Which is why I’m asking you to vote on theory driven development:
> >
> > I will abstain from this vote.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Greg.
> >

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