Yep - the new build passes the sanity tests for me. I'll do a bit more but you can start the vote in the meantime.
Regards, Tim chunrong lai wrote: > +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 >> >
