> Yet it appears that even the code of interest is not stable. There are > verifier bugs being fixed at the moment [1] which presumably mean that a code > freeze now for M6 would be unacceptable. > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5785
I'm sorry for this and the previous regressions. I learned how Mikhail's verifier should work from the code, and the naming was confusing for that particular case. On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stepan Mishura wrote: > > > It makes me sad :-( > > > > We ask another project to be more flexible but we are not ready to be > > flexible too - we scheduled M6 to mid of May and we couldn't move it > > to the end of April. We are discussing the request almost for 2 weeks > > (this time is enough to make full milestone testing cycle) and I've > > not heard any strong argument for having it in mid of May expect that > > we scheduled it to this date. ;-( > > > > I have no objection to moving the date of M6 earlier, but I do object to us > declaring "M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP" as a convenience, less tested, pseudo-release > to circumvent the Eclipse legal process. > > Yet it appears that even the code of interest is not stable. There are > verifier bugs being fixed at the moment [1] which presumably mean that a > code freeze now for M6 would be unacceptable. > > (A nit, but it actually takes us longer than two weeks, since after the > code freeze we historically test longer than one week, then we need time to > vote on the results and publish it, so its actually more like three minimum) > > It makes me sad that we didn't hear of this request sooner, or that TPTP > have a release more frequently than once per year. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5785 > > Regards, > Tim > -- With best regards, Alexei
