On 4/24/08, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I ran the tests locally and they passed.
So you applied your fix and all these 15 failed tests passed. Correct? > Though, a number of other > tests failed, I assumed, due to assertions absent in your release > build. > Hmm, you assumed that tests results for debug and release builds are different but this also IMHO may mean other regressions in verifier. BTW, I don't see any regression test in the patch. Does it make sense to create it and add it to DRLVM reg. test suite? Thanks, Stepan. > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Stepan Mishura > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4/24/08, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Stenan, > > > Sorry. I have fixed VTS verifier test failures: > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~smishura/r650380/Windows_x86/vtsvm/junit/index.html > > > > > > > So all 15 tests failed because of this bug. Correct? > > > > -Stepan. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Stepan Mishura > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Alexei, > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/24/08, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hello Stepan, > > > > > > > > > > I have fixed more verifier failures, see > > > > > > > > Which failures did you fix? HARMONY-5785 description doesn't mention > > any. > > > > > > > > -Stepan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5785 > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Stepan Mishura > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 4/22/08, 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). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, freezing only verifier code can be a compromise in this case. > > > > > > But I think it makes sense for other areas to ask people not > > commit > > > > > > risky changes (i.e. make feature freeze and commit only bug > > fixes) - > > > > > > it will help with detection and resolution of possible verifier > > > > > > regressions. I believe that this acceptable too. > > > > > > > > > > > > Could I ask all folks interesting in M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP release > > to look > > > > > > through tests failures to understand if there are regressions in > > the > > > > > > verifier or not? > > > > > > > > > > > > Tests results for r650380 are almost ready [1] (testing the next > > > > > > r650564 snapshot will be launched in 2-3 hours). If there are no > > > > > > regressions then I think r650380 (or r650564) can be promoted as > > > > > > M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP. If you find verifier regression please let > > > > > > everybody know ASAP - it should be fixed quickly. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > http://people.apache.org/~mloenko/snapshot_testing/script/r650380/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Stepan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > With best regards, > > > > > Alexei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > With best regards, > > > Alexei > > > > > > > > > -- > With best regards, > Alexei >
