On the 0x207 day of Apache Harmony Mikhail Loenko wrote: > Good! :) > > Now it's more or less clear about the categories that we have and I suggest > that we discuss policies around the categories. > > Probably we will have weaker policies for the current stage of the project and > stricter policies when we are closer to release. > > I suggest that we discuss current policies first. > > For the category "Yes" or "Supported" we do our best to not break it with > commits. "Do our best" to be defined later. If a commit breaks that platform > we stop further commits and either fix or roll it back ASAP. Comments? > > For the category "In-progress" we should probably have weaker policies > comparing to "Supported", but we still need some. Ideas? > Possibly we should try not to break it and if we break then discuss > whether it was intentionally or not and may decide to roll it back or > do something > else. Other ideas?
Yes, I am thinking about the same. And in terms of "Yes" there should be not a large number of platforms (freesing commits is expensive). In this way, "In-Progress" does not seem very good. Because the "progress" never ends. I propose "fast support" and "slow support". "Yes" == "Supported" == "critical-to-repair platform set" should be kept small enough. I would vote for <7 for today. We can have more as community grows. I performed no scientific estimations for the number, of course:) > Thanks, > Mikhail > > 2006/10/19, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Even better: > > > > Yes > > No > > Maybe > > > > :-) > > > > On 18/10/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > > -- Egor Pasko, Intel Managed Runtime Division --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
