Better :
Supported
Not-Supported
In-Progress
Mikhail Fursov wrote:
Mikhail,
I support your classification: it covers all types I can imagine.
Here is my proposal of naming:
1) "not supported"
2) "product" or "supported"
3) "incubation"
On 10/18/06, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, I think there are at least three categories of platforms:
1) Platforms that we don't care about
2) Platforms that we think work and we want them working
3) Platforms that we want working but they still don't
We definitely have to roll back the commits that break #2.
We need some 'protection' policy to make it possible for platforms
to graduate from #3 to #2
And we need some criteria to define how #1 could become #3
And we need names for the categories that are not misleading
Comments?
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/10/18, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> Mikhail Fursov wrote:
> > Mikhail,
> > The situation is possible with some Linux clones.
> > And if we have such a situation I propose to take into account if we
have a
> > commiter/volunteer to check this platform.
> > If we have a volunteer - we support it.
> >
> > Another question is: what if volunteer is gone and no one supports
the
> > platform? Will we claim that Harmony no longer supports the platform?
>
> No - to be supported, we have to agree as a community. I'm wary about
> there being one-person-supported platforms.
>
> We can easily have two categories -
>
> a) platforms that we certify as being compatible, and support
>
> b) platforms that we certify as being compatible, but don't make any
> support promises
>
> geir
>
> >
> > On 10/18/06, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> 2006/10/17, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> >> > > 2006/10/17, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Mikhail Fursov wrote:
> >> > > I think if we decide to support a platform then we define a set
of
> >> tests
> >> > > that
> >> > > must pass on that platform after each commit and we do roll back
if
> >> they
> >> > > fail. That is how I understand "support"
> >> >
> >> > Lets define support as passing >90% of classlib unit and
> >> > smoke/c-unit/kernel in DRLVM
> >>
> >> It might be a criteria for addition to the set of supported, but
can't
> >> be a definition.
> >> Logically there could be a platform that we don't know, but that
platform
> >> could
> >> pass 99% of the tests, do you think we can support a platform we
don't
> >> have any
> >> idea about?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Mikhail
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > geir
> >> >
> >> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > 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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
