On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Vasily Levchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tim, > > > > I'm sorry the following was not transparent in my previous correspondence. > We've been able to talk around requirements of a binary build and switch to > an unmodified source re-use. Hope, both communities would benefit from this. > > > > But unfortunately Eclipse community imports only "officially released" third > party components. This means that just a revision number is not sufficient. > The number should have an official name given by Harmony committers > providing an additional insurance of the import quality. That is why we > cannot make our request in a way which does not affect an official Harmony > schedule. > > > > The end of this week is a deadline for any third party contributions for > this year. I'd appreciate if you'll be able to find opportunity to ship a > special release for TPTP. >
Then let's do it. Thanks, xiaofeng > > Vasily > > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > --vvl > -- http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com
