Is VS6 needed to appropriately test this issue [1]? I'm not intimate with the verifier; are there specific tests that could be run to get a general assurance of the passivity?
-Nathan [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5750 On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Vasily Levchenko < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greetings, > We've finally established source base and launched our test, demonstrating > stability and reliable of verifier code. would you mind to initiate with > releasing milestone HDK-M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP? > > As I've mentioned earlier but wasn't able point to JIRA ( > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5750) we're extremely > interested this patch to be included. > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]<https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > On 4/14/08, Vasily Levchenko <[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]<https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Stepan Mishura < > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > As I understood the thread it is doable to make interim release > > > > targeted to assist inclusion of Harmony verifier to the nearest > > > > Eclipse TPTP release. Let me share my understanding of the request > and > > > > a possible way to resolve it (please correct me if I'm wrong): The > > > > Eclipse team needs an 'official' (i.e. published on the web-site as > > > > milestone build) Harmony release. The Eclipse team only interesting > in > > > > changes in verifier since M5 so the main criteria for the interim > > > > release is no regressions in verifier functionality (i.e. I assume > > > > that not critical regressions are acceptable for interim release. I > > > > believe that is important for having a shorten freeze/test/release > > > > period for the interim release) > > > > > > > > So I think we may consider: > > > > - making sure that all artifacts required are in place (i.e. > committed > > > > to the trunk) > > > > - declaring short code freeze > > > > - running testing cycle to see if there are any issues with verifier > > > > and overall code. (BTW, are there any know issues with verifier > that > > > > needs to be fixed?) > > > > > > > > Having said that I thought that we are testing up to 6 snapshots per > > > > week so we may pick up any interim snapshot that has everything > > > > required and shows good testing results, make it 'official' - i.e. > > > > publish it ... with proper label - M5.5_Eclipse or something else to > > > > avoid confusions and to state clearly that the release it targeted > to > > > > the Eclipse TPTP release. > > > > > > > > Does it make sense and works for all parties? > > > > > > > > The only issue that still unclear for me is ABI requirements: has > the > > > > Harmony team build/test the code to satisfy ABI or you can do it? > > > > (Alexey Petrenko asked this before but I don't see any answer) > > > > > > > > > I suppose we can do it, but it should be in the released package too. > If > > > we're going to share building of the module how it will looks like? > > > 1. you'll give us revision > > > 2. and we'll return the compiled libraries > > > > > > or some other way? > > > > > > > OK as I see from your answer - the Harmony team has to build binaries > > that satisfy ABI (because we publish binaries that are created only by > > Harmony committers.) > > > > -Stepan. > > > > <SNIP> > > > > > > -- > --vvl >
