+1 to start a vote for r713673. On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Sian January <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> 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 >
