Tim, I see the good point in your explanation too. So we need to consider three options: Option 1. Go with r711744 as M8. It is already tested, so just solidify build. Option 2. Fix H6013, declare r711744 + H6013 as M8, presume the impact locality, solidify the build. Option 3. Fix H6013, declare r711744 + H6013 as M8, re-spin the tests, solidify the build.
I'm voting for (3). I would be glad to be proved wrong on my concerns, actually I would be pleased with that :) Maybe just arrange a vote again? Thanks, Aleksey. On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Can you think of a situation when the null check will introduce some >>> instability or regression? >> I actually persuaded by Chunrong's point -- that's double checking, so >> no problems should occur. >> >> As for introducing new bugs, consider the issue described in >> HARMONY-6013 is really covering some other deadly issue. Consider the >> workload where NPE is not firing because of H6013, > > ...but the test doesn't silently work without the NPE, it causes a trap. > > So we know that our tests don't currently cover the situation where we > would now expect to get a NPE, or they would be trapping today, right? > >> so after H6013 gets >> fixed the control flow in that workload is going differ than in tested >> M8. As many uses of the helper, as many the chances the control flow >> differs. Having that, we can't say the change is minor. > > I appreciate that the code will appear in many places, but I think it is > localized and we know the situation doesn't occur in current testing. > > That said, I'd rather run the two days + testing again rather than spend > two days arguing about it :-) > >> If I will be >> able eventually to say that similar changes are "limited >> impact"-issues, then you should employ me as oracle tester <g> :) > > lol > >> Of course, that's the speculation if this is actually a double null checking. >> I just want not to guess while talking about milestones. > > ack - like I said, if people think we should re-spin the build and > retest, then I'm ok with that too. It would be the conservative approach. > > Regards, > Tim >
