Hi Pavel, I'm sorry I did not catch how for example Nathan's commits will be checked on the configurations he does not have?
Thanks, Mikhail 2006/10/9, Pavel Ozhdikhin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 10/9/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rana Dasgupta wrote: > > We need to check both release and debug builds...the binaries and timing > > characteristics are too different. At this immediate stage of the > > project, I > > would suggest leaving out EM64T as part of mandatory testing( unless it is > > EM64T specific functionality, eg., codegen ). Too few contributors and > > committers have access to it. We are not yet at a stage where we can make > > this mandatory. > > > > If possible all submissions should be tested( by submitters ) on all the > > combinations identified . It is actually more urgent for submitters to do > > this. We should stop patches by email. Also, at this point, it is an honor > > system, we can't attach 6 before and after test logs to each JIRA > > submission. The committer could randomly check on one or more combination, > > ...the more the better obviously. > > > > In some cases, submissions will be platform specific ( eg., very new code > > like GC V5, platform specific bug fixes or a simple case of developer not > > having all the machines ). I would leave these to the committers' > > discretion. > > Mandating that patches are pre-tested on a wide variety of machines is > not conducive to building a broad community of contributors since very > few people have access to all the machines and configurations we are > interested in. I'd much prefer that we work optimistically and have > lots of people regularly building and testing the code to get the > broadest possible coverage. We can backtrack if problems arise. Even is a committer does't have a wide variety of machines I think we can still mandate that his/her commits are checked on the right configuration. If the majority works on GCC 4.0.3 checking the patch on GCC 3.3.2 might not reveal the problems. Regular testing will, but the time spend on backtracking is lost. The proposal is not only about variety of configurations but is also about configurations themselves. Rana proposed to exclude EM64T and add debug configs, so for now the list is following: - Windows / IA32 / MSVS .NET 2003 / release - Windows / IA32 / MSVS .NET 2003 / debug - Linux / IA32 / GCC 4.0.3 / release - Linux / IA32 / GCC 4.0.3 / debug - Linux / EM64T / GCC 4.0.3 / release - Linux / EM64T / GCC 4.0.3 / debug (the last two are questionable, but at least Geir has a machine) Assuming you are testing you commits on one of the machines above, do you agree it make sense all committers to use the same configuration? For example, if you use Linux/IA32 and another committer uses Linux/IA32, do you agree that it makes sense to use the same compiler versions for pre-commit testing? Contributors are still free to check their patches whenever they want or don't test them at all, but they should know what to expect from the committers. Thanks, Pavel > > Regards, > Tim > > -- > > Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > IBM Java technology centre, UK. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
