Hi, Since the discussion is going on actively, I've thought of gathering the ideas and publishing on wiki. What do you say?
Cheers, Nadya >-----Original Message----- >From: Alexey Petrenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 12:14 PM >To: dev@harmony.apache.org >Subject: Re: [general] Harmony Q2 release requirements > >2007/3/5, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> 2007/3/5, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > 2007/3/5, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > > 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? :) >> > No objections! :) >> > We definitely need a milestone since milestones helps to keep us and >> > Harmony in good shape. >> > >> > > >> > > 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? >> > >> > I think that we also need performance targets: run some benchmarks and >> > demonstrate reasonable results. >> > We are using Dacapo and SciMark now [1]. >> >> Agreed, we definitely need performance goals >> >> > >> > Do we need some additional benchmarks? And what will the reasonable >> > target results? >> >> No worse than RI 6.0 ? Do you think we can achieve that in Q2? :) >I think that this can be achieved for a limited set of benchmarks. > >SY, Alexey
