Thanks Chunrong. It looks like all the snapshots are now available and the integrity tests have been run on the latest revision (http://people.apache.org/~chunrong/harmony-integrity/), with the same results as r711744.
Shall we start a new vote for r713673, or does anyone need a bit longer to try it out? 2008/11/13 chunrong lai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Yes. It is my final version, as the option (2) we discussed before. > I just checked the snapshot uploading. The linux snapshots have been > uploaded while the windows snapshots have not. > Thanks. > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm just trying to figure out if r713673 is the final version from >> chunrong -- then we can all be testing it again. >> >> Regards, >> Tim >> >> Pavel Pervov wrote: >> > +1 for (2) >> > >> > WBR, >> > Pavel. >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Sean Qiu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> option 2 sounds reasonable for me, anyway quality overweigh others. >> >> >> >> +1 for (2) in addition to Sian's comment. >> >> >> >> 2008/11/12 Sian January <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >> >>> Presumably with option (2) we would still run the Harmony Classlib and >> >>> DRLVM test suites as part of the build? If so, then (2) would be my >> >>> preference. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> 2008/11/12 Aleksey Shipilev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>>> 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 >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Unless stated otherwise above: >> >>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with >> number >> >>> 741598. >> >>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 >> 3AU >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Best Regards >> >> Sean, Xiao Xia Qiu >> >> >> >> China Software Development Lab, IBM >> >> >> > >> > -- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
