Alexei Fedotov wrote:
As far as I understand Eclipse IP committee needs a revision number to
be supplied (no binaries involved).
Apologies, I missed that point in the discussions around compiler level
etc. If it is simply a well-defined revision of the verifier code then
that is quite different.
The favour Vasily is asking about
is providing him with a slightly tested revision. This would suppress
a normal work of committers for one day. Is it something we cannot
afford?
Of course, in that area of the code I think it is quite reasonable. It
would not prevent people working in the other areas of Harmony (such as
GC, JIT, and class library).
Of course, we cannot prevent the revision number of the entire
repository changing over time, but you could nominate a givne revision
number for the verifier code to be taken by Eclipse.
Did I understand this right?
Thanks,
Tim
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm really not convinced this is a good idea for Harmony, and my concerns
are in two parts:
1) Our schedule should not be dictated by an external project, especially
when it is their process that seems to be setting the artificial time limit.
Why not show some flexibility to meet our dates?
2) Our principle delivery mechanism is source code. While we make binaries
available as a convenience we should not encourage dependents to put
dependencies on our build tools. They should take source and compile it
themselves for their own environment.
Regards,
Tim
Vasily Levchenko wrote:
$subj.
