On the 0x290 day of Apache Harmony Geir Magnusson, Jr. wrote: > On Mar 5, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Egor Pasko wrote: > > > On the 0x290 day of Apache Harmony Mikhail Loenko wrote: > >> 2007/3/5, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>> 05 Mar 2007 12:30:05 +0300, Egor Pasko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>>> On the 0x290 day of Apache Harmony Mikhail Loenko wrote: > >>>>> According to our high-level roadmap [1] we were going to make our > >>>>> first release in Q2. Let's define what we would like to see in > >>>>> our Q2 > >>>>> release. If there are no objections let's discuss what we want > >>>>> that > >>>>> release being able to do. > >>>>> > >>>>> I suggest that we focus on stability measured by being able to > >>>>> successfully run a few solid applications and by pass rates for > >>>>> the > >>>>> test suites. > >>>>> So, I think in Q2 we should 1) run reasonable set of > >>>>> applications 2) > >>>>> have reasonable testing infrastructure and 3) pass reasonable > >>>>> set of > >>>>> test suites. > >>>>> > >>>>> Though we will be happy to accept all the patches that fix > >>>>> existing > >>>>> problems or add missing functionality, I suggest that people > >>>>> who hang > >>>>> around will focus on those scenarios that we will choose here > >>>>> > >>>>> Objections? :) > >>>>> > >>>>> If there are no objections again, I'd like to propose that we > >>>>> will target: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1) keeping all the enabled apps in the "up" state > >>>>> (we will create a list of enabled apps and put them all into > >>>>> cruise control) > >>>>> > >>>>> 2) running 2-3 open source server-side software > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 3) running 2-3 open source developers tools > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 4) setting up necessary testing infrastructure and having near > >>>>> 100% > >>>>> pass rates for the suites we have > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 5) what about commercial software? Some time ago we agreed that > >>>>> it's > >>>>> OK to report failures/regression of commercial software. Should we > >>>>> have them in the "requirements" to our Q2 release? > >>>>> > >>>>> Since currently the most stable platform is Windows/IA32 I suggest > >>>>> that Harmony Q2 will be released on that specific platform > >>>> > >>>> you mean, we have no time for 2 platforms? > >>> > >>> I mean we should IMHO make a focus: have superb results on a single > >>> platform on a limited set of applications rather than have million > >>> somehow working scenarios > >>> on a dozen of platforms. > >> > >> Does it make sense? > > > > I think, limiting ourselves for the next milestone is a good > > idea. Though, IMHO, limiting ourseles to windows is more of a > > limitation than of making us focused. It does not take much effort to > > support Linux with te same priority of bugfixing (if scenarious are > > pretty automated), but lets people be sure that we are not to break > > their work in favour to support windows faster. > > > > There may be a hybrid strategy: improve on windows, do not break > > anything on Linux, seems pretty acceptable to me. > > I have zero interest in exclusively working on Windows. None. Zip. > Zero. Nada. > > Linux is a peer distro for this project. It always has been.
+1 > To be an open source project that only distributes software for > closed source ecosystems like Windows is the sort of irony I'd prefer > not to be associated with :) > > geir > > > -- Egor Pasko
