Alexei Fedotov wrote:
Pavel,
The life started showing that you were correct. Today there were no
report on http://harmonytest.org. Even if I would like to be a living
notification, I couldn't.
Vladimir,
The thing which concerns me most is not an absence of results - I
believe this is just a technical problem. For me the main problem is
that without you there is no way to understand what happens.
I don't understand that.
The goal here is to establish the build-test framework as the thing that
everyone uses- we aren't dependent only upon Vladimir.
I'll have a version running on 64-bit ubuntu whenever it works, and
probalby 32-bit as well reporting in...
Can we made a process of reporting more open? For example, can we tune
CC to send a notification on upload status? If there is a successful
notification, then the file is uploaded successfully, and we need to
ask Anton why it is not visible. Otherwise we'll know the problem is
in CC.
Um. I'd prefer if we didn't spam the lists with every good result - we
only want to know when there's breakage or "fixage".
geir
Thanks!
On 11/16/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry to say but it actually does not work until there is no
notifications
to the mailing list and no immediate reaction to the regressions.
thanks,
Pavel
On 11/16/06, Fedotov, Alexei A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Pavel, All,
>
> Let me add one "pro" for the second approach: it works already.
> Vladimir's scripts daily upload test results to http://harmonytest.org.
>
> With best regards,
> Alexei Fedotov,
> Intel Java & XML Engineering
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Tim Ellison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 12:37 PM
> >To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >Subject: Re: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
> >
> >Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote:
> >> We have to evolving systems - classlib and DRLVM. To check
commits to
> >> classlib we need a stable DRLVM which can pass 100% of HUT.
Otherwise
> >it's
> >> impossible to use DRLVM for pre-commit testing - you never know
> whether
> >> your
> >> test fail because of your patch or due to latest changes in DRLVM.
> >>
> >> I remember the time when DRLVM and Jitrino actively evolved - for
> some
> >time
> >> JIT had to use an older version of DRLVM which could pass all commit
> >> criteria because newer versions suffered from regressions. And
> finally we
> >> came to comon strict commit criteria which prevented regressions in
> both
> >VM
> >> and JIT.
> >>
> >> To avoid regressions using DRLVM in classlib testing I see 3
possible
> >> solutions:
> >>
> >> 1. Use one fixed DRLVM version which can pass 100% HUT test. Update
> this
> >> version from time to time.
> >> Pros: + Less time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests
> >> + Classlib does not suffer from regressions in DRLVM
> >> Cons: - DRLVM will suffer from regressions
> >> - Classlib can not use the latest DRLVM
> >> - Need additional efforts to regain stability on DRLVM
> >> when we want to update the version for classlib
> testing
> >>
> >> 2. Add HUT to CruiseControl testing on DRLVM and rollback commits
> causing
> >> regressions
> >> Pros: + Less time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests
> >> + Classlib can use the latest DRLVM
> >> Cons: - Classlib can suffer from DRLVM regressions (time lag
> before
> >> rollback)
> >> - It is not always clear which commit caused a
> regression
> >> - Rollbacks are costly
> >>
> >> 3. Add HUT to the commit criteria for DRLVM
> >> Pros: + Classlib always can use the latest DRLVM
> >> + DRLVM has no regressions regarding to HUT
> >> Cons: - More time to run DRLVM pre-commit tests (I was told that
> HUT
> >> take 25 minutes running in single JVM mode)
> >>
> >> I think that preventing a problem is better than solving it
> afterwards.
> >So,
> >> I personally would choose the 3rd approach, don't mind against the
> second
> >> and dislike the first one. Probably some combination of these is
> >possible.
> >
> >While I appreciate the desire to keep things stable, I think it is
> >unreasonable to ask developers to run the entire test suite each time.
> >As we have seen in the classlib code, running targeted tests before
> >commit and leaving the build machines to run continuous tests ensures
> >that we are productive and are notified of breakages in time to easily
> >back out a patch and re-evaluate.
> >
> >With the amount of machine time we have running harmony tests on
> >different cpu's/os's/compilers/etc we are getting better coverage than
> >any individual could be expected to provide.
> >
> >Which is a long way of saying I think option (2) above is best -- and
> >relies on the bid machines letting us know if things break, and the
> >commitment from all of us to go straight in and fix it.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tim
> >
> >--
> >
> >Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> >IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>
