On 12/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
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?
Accoring to CC notifications CC failed after r486100. Vladimir (Ivanov) can correct me if I'm wrong.
> > 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...
I did investigation [1] but as I see now it wasn't enough to attract attention to CC problems. So what should be done? Just roll back commit and notify dev-list? [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/harmony-dev/200612.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Stepan. 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 >> > >> > >> > > >
-- Stepan Mishura Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
