On 10/7/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What would you do if you need to commit a patch to some Linux-specific code in VM? The commit criteria my be either as simple as a list of configs or have also some exclusions. For example, there is no much sense to test on Linux a patch for a source file which is not even compiled on Windows.
I meant "not even compiled on Linux", of course. :)
On 10/7/06, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I only have Windows/MSVC2003/IA32, if you're looking for anecdotal evidence. > > On 10/6/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alexey, > > > > No, I'm not sure the committers have all the configurations. I think > > most of all have Windows and Linux IA32, but I doubt all of them have > > EM64T. This is indeed the problem and I hope together we will find the > > solution. For example, we may not require classlib commits to be > > tested on EM64T for now, or check if Apache has machines for testing, > > or we'll have a magic tool which will run EM64T tests for all > > committers on some hidden machine etc. If finally we realize that it's > > impossible to require EM64T testing at this time, we can delay this > > particular config, but regarding remaining criteria I think we can > > avoid many problems using primary target configs. > > > > Thanks, > > Pavel > > > > > > > > On 10/6/06, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Pavel, > > > > > > Your idea has sence. But... Are you sure that all the committers has > > > all the mentioned configurations? > > > > > > SY, Alexey > > > > > > 2006/10/6, Pavel Ozhdikhin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > This thread is about a way to improve stability in the environment of > > > > growing patch flow in Harmony. Originally I though about DRLVM issues > > > > but this may be helpful for classlib too. > > > > > > > > Currenly, before committing a patch a committer checks it on his > > > > favorite configurations (I mean architecture, OS and compiler first of > > > > all). Another committer checks another patch on a different set of > > > > configurations. As a result, though both patches are tested, there is > > > > no guarantee that they will work together on any configuration. > > > > > > > > If we agree on common testing configs we can make sure the Harmony > > > > will be stable on at least this set of configurations. This does not > > > > mean we won't fix problems on other configurations. The goal is to > > > > gain and maintain general stability. > > > > > > > > Another benefit would be in faster adoption of patches. If > > > > contributors could check their patches on the same configs as the > > > > committers do, there would be less likely a particular patch is > > > > rejected. > > > > > > > > I propose to work out a set of configs the committers will use to > > > > check patches before committing them to SVN. We can start with a few > > > > configs defining the platform, OS familly and the compiler used. When > > > > we are sure the Harmony is stable we can add more configurations. IMO, > > > > it would be reasonable to start with 3 configurations - one > > > > configuration for each supported platform, for example: > > > > > > > > - Windows / IA32 / MSVS .NET 2003 / release > > > > - Linux / IA32 / GCC 4.0.3 / release > > > > - Linux / EM64T / GCC 4.0.3 / release > > > > > > > > There may be a contrary point - let's everyone use it's own platform - > > > > such way we'll discover bugs earlier. I think this might work good in > > > > a smaller project. The Harmony is quite a big child already and trying > > > > to kill all the birds we may chase them for ages. > > > > > > > > I'd be happy if we converge on the set of our primary target configs here. > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > Pavel Ozhdikhin > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Alexey A. Petrenko > > > Intel Middleware Products Division > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
