Hi Xiao Feng, You probably missed this, but we have taken an internal Intel target to release Harmony first on Win32 in Q2 after a lot of discussions in Judy's JCM meeting, based primarily on feedback from the JIT and performance teams.
Rana On 4/2/07, Xiao-Feng Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/3/07, Pavel Ozhdikhin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/3/07, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Nathan Beyer wrote: > > > However, from looking back on this mailing list thread, I couldn't > > > find any decision at the end of this or much of a consensus. I would > > > like to pull this together, vote on it. document it (site, Wiki, etc), > > > test it, etc. > > > > Agreed, let's try and get a consensus on what we will have in our M1 > > build, and a date to shoot for it. > > > > I think we have a reasonable idea forming that it will be (taken from > > your list): > > > > - IA32/x86 with a minimum of P3 (SSE, not SSE2) > > - IA64/IPF (Intel 64-bit architecture) > > - x86_64/AMD64/EMT64 (AMD architecture) > > > > - (Windows 2000 SP4?), Windows XP SP2, Windows 2003, > > Windows 2003 R2, (Windows Vista?) > > - Linux; kernel v2.4.x, v2.6.x > > - (FreeBSD v???) > > > > I've put some in parentheses since we need to hear from people what work > > is required to get them ready and stable. I also removed the priority > > order since I think they are all equally important if we declare them > > stable. > > > > An M1 date of April 30th would give us a stable build ready for > > ApacheCon EU and JavaOne, which seems like a good goal. Working > > backwards we would then focus on stability for whatever we have got from > > April 23. > > > > I wonder if the Win2000 goal is possible in that timeframe? If not I > > suggest we live with WinXP as a minimum requirement for M1. Do we know > > what it takes to run on Vista/FreeBSD? Again I'm guessing non-trivial > > work remaining and we should drop it from M1 if so. > > > > Regards, > > Tim > > > > I think having a milestone we want to show a really fast and stable runtime > environment, not just another snapshot of what we have to the moment. If I'm > correct than 1 week between the feature freeze and release date is not > enough. Working on JIT I see ~30 JIRA issues that may affect real > applications, and running recently contributed test suites will reveal > more. I think we should strive to fix most of them before the milestone, > probably by the cost of limiting number of supported platforms. Then we may > go to the next milestone, including more platforms/configurations. > > > > Having this in mind I propose to release M1 with IA32 support only, may be > even limiting this support to Windows. Let's fix all stability problems > there and then go to the next milestone shortly, including support for Linux > or x86_64. I propose a feature freeze date of 15th of May and put M1 release > date of 15th of June. At the feature freeze we should complete current > development works and move on to stability to release a really mature > runtime. We might have release an "release candidate" before the JavaOne > which will have all the capabilities than our milestone build but without > all stability issues fixed. > > > > I also have comments about configurations: > > *- IA32/x86 with a minimum of P3 (SSE, not SSE2)* > ** > ** > > SSE+SSE2 unless someone commits to test and complete on pure PIII. > *- IA64/IPF (Intel 64-bit architecture)* > > DRLVM is poorly tested on IPF yet. This is rather for M3 milestone. > > *- x86_64/AMD64/EMT64 (AMD architecture)* > Let's put this aside for the first release. We have some stability level > there which is supported by CruiseControl and no regression on these > platform is enough for the first release. I'm fine to include this into M1 > if someone commit to this. > > *- (Windows 2000 SP4?), Windows XP SP2, Windows 2003, > Windows 2003 R2, (Windows Vista?)* > > > > + 1 for Windows 2003, Windows XP. It's interesting to try on Vista but I'd > give it some time to "grow up" before we go there. Pavel, I personally would vote Linux32 for the first release. If Win32 is easier to achieve, we probably can make is an internal (intermediate) milestone for the real Linux32 release. (Actually I don't know if Win32 is easier than Linux32). Thanks, xiaofeng > > *- Linux; kernel v2.4.x, v2.6.x* > > > > I'm sure Geir will vote for Linux, but I'm reluctant to put everything in > the first milestone. > > > *- (FreeBSD v???) > * > > Volunteers? ;-) > > > > Thank you, > > Pavel Ozhdikhin > > Intel Managed Runtime Division >
