Stepan Mishura wrote:
On 12/14/06, Alexey Varlamov wrote:
2006/12/14, Tim Ellison :
> Alexey Varlamov wrote:
> > Fixed svn as agreed, both classlib and drlvm impl.
>
> Given it a VMI modification I would like to have had a more coordinated
> change, so the IBM VME can be changed too. We are also trying to get a
> snapshot out so this would be one I would defer until that is done.
AFAIU the snapshot is pointless if taken from broken repository state.
All CC systems were FAILED for > 2 days, since the initial
modification which provoked this discussion. I presume it is important
enough to get back to PASSED status quickly.
I support Alexey's point here.
I don't think that anyone is debating the goodness of getting things
fixed. Thats clear. The problem is that the I still don't believe
that the VMI thing was a fix, but rather a tweak to get rid of an
ambiguity in the API.
So... what was FAILING the CC?
Sorry for being annoying but can not really understand what is the problem
here with restoring things as they were before CC went down. And after
that we can work out an appropriate solution and coordinate a change
without
hurrying.
I agree that things should be fixed ASAP, but I still think that we're
confused about what the problem is. I don't agree that a massive
rollback whenever we see a CC failure is the right thing to do, given
the cascading problems that can create.
Maybe an improvement in process is when there's a CC failure, someone
investigate and simply report to the dev list what's going on. I think
that's one of our problems right now... we're not engaging together on
the CC problems...
geir
Thanks,
Stepan.
Besides my speculation
was that current agreement reflects IBM VME behavior too so it does
not require urgent update.
>
> Geir has some further questions on the rationale for the change. Let's
> give it more than 24hrs for agreement before committing.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
