Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
Ivan Volosyuk wrote: What an interesting discussion! I have just read this out. :) IMHO, all of the discussion is focused on the scalability of bazar-like development as it exists here in harmony incubator: If something wrong is commited, then everyone has broken build or something doesn't work. - This is bad. System is badly scalable. What can we do here? If build is broken, then the cause might be found by someone and posted on harmony-dev. - This is good. And it has good scalability :) Exactly -- we don't expect committers to be infallible or have every type of machine and OS version that we intend to 'support' (i.e. keep running), so we cannot have a model that requires such extensive pre-commit testing. Of course, we therefore need full community approval to declare some revision of code stable, but our bazaar-like diversity is truly an asset. 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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
Bazaar is a funny concept. :) I think it'll work assuming we have a bazaar police - something constantly checking integrity of our code on some target platforms. These may be the community members reporting failures or a tool constantly testing some target platforms. But this tool is another topic for discussion. Thanks, Pavel On 10/16/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ivan Volosyuk wrote: What an interesting discussion! I have just read this out. :) IMHO, all of the discussion is focused on the scalability of bazar-like development as it exists here in harmony incubator: If something wrong is commited, then everyone has broken build or something doesn't work. - This is bad. System is badly scalable. What can we do here? If build is broken, then the cause might be found by someone and posted on harmony-dev. - This is good. And it has good scalability :) Exactly -- we don't expect committers to be infallible or have every type of machine and OS version that we intend to 'support' (i.e. keep running), so we cannot have a model that requires such extensive pre-commit testing. Of course, we therefore need full community approval to declare some revision of code stable, but our bazaar-like diversity is truly an asset. 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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: If it turns out to be a big deal, we can simply add a pre-commit target to the build that checks for things like that. It could also check for things like tabs. If possible, it could be a pre-commit hook for svn, but if not, in the build would be useful for those creating patches... Jeepers! Just hit return at the end of the file. If you screw-up the build system will slap you, we don't need scripts to fix this for us during commit/build. 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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
I couldn't have said it better. :) On 10/14/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: If it turns out to be a big deal, we can simply add a pre-commit target to the build that checks for things like that. It could also check for things like tabs. If possible, it could be a pre-commit hook for svn, but if not, in the build would be useful for those creating patches... Jeepers! Just hit return at the end of the file. If you screw-up the build system will slap you, we don't need scripts to fix this for us during commit/build. 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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
Tim Ellison wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: If it turns out to be a big deal, we can simply add a pre-commit target to the build that checks for things like that. It could also check for things like tabs. If possible, it could be a pre-commit hook for svn, but if not, in the build would be useful for those creating patches... Jeepers! Just hit return at the end of the file. If you screw-up the build system will slap you, we don't need scripts to fix this for us during commit/build. Hence... if it turns out to be a big deal... geir Regards, Tim - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
What an interesting discussion! I have just read this out. :) IMHO, all of the discussion is focused on the scalability of bazar-like development as it exists here in harmony incubator: If something wrong is commited, then everyone has broken build or something doesn't work. - This is bad. System is badly scalable. What can we do here? If build is broken, then the cause might be found by someone and posted on harmony-dev. - This is good. And it has good scalability :) -- Ivan On 10/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Ellison wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: If it turns out to be a big deal, we can simply add a pre-commit target to the build that checks for things like that. It could also check for things like tabs. If possible, it could be a pre-commit hook for svn, but if not, in the build would be useful for those creating patches... Jeepers! Just hit return at the end of the file. If you screw-up the build system will slap you, we don't need scripts to fix this for us during commit/build. Hence... if it turns out to be a big deal... geir - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
Ivan Volosyuk wrote: What an interesting discussion! I have just read this out. :) IMHO, all of the discussion is focused on the scalability of bazar-like development as it exists here in harmony incubator: If something wrong is commited, then everyone has broken build or something doesn't work. - This is bad. System is badly scalable. What can we do here? Over time, evolve to a system where a build distributor checks each commit before it's commited. For now, we get good CI running all over the community so we know ASAP. If build is broken, then the cause might be found by someone and posted on harmony-dev. - This is good. And it has good scalability :) -- Ivan On 10/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Ellison wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: If it turns out to be a big deal, we can simply add a pre-commit target to the build that checks for things like that. It could also check for things like tabs. If possible, it could be a pre-commit hook for svn, but if not, in the build would be useful for those creating patches... Jeepers! Just hit return at the end of the file. If you screw-up the build system will slap you, we don't need scripts to fix this for us during commit/build. Hence... if it turns out to be a big deal... 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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
On 10/12/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Weldon Washburn wrote: On 10/12/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Weldon Washburn wrote: A word of caution to those who are committing C/C++ code. There are unique features of Microsoft C/C++ that will cause a build failure on Linux and vice versa. For example, gcc expects that the end of a C/C++ file is a blank line. Microsoft does not. That's gotta be a bug. What version are you using? gcc 3.4.5. If its a bug, its unlikely we will fix gcc or wait for gcc to be fixed. Have you tried it on another version? No I have not tried it on another version. If Mike Ringrose is correct about the ISO spec, the basic problem is that MSVC compiler is not ISO compliant. I have hit this specific problem multiple times over the years. That is, code developed on windows laptop w/o a blank new line at the end will not compile on gcc. No I have not tried it on another version. If Mike Ringrose is correct about the ISO spec, the basic problem is that MSVC compiler is not ISO compliant. I have hit this specific problem multiple times over the years. That is, code developed on windows laptop w/o a blank new line at the end will not compile on gcc. The real issue is that there are a bunch of minor incompatibilities between MSVC and gcc. I would not recommend holding one's breath waiting for them to go away. My approach to the above is to simply test on both linux and windows before committing. T -- Weldon Washburn Intel Middleware Products Division
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
On the 0x201 day of Apache Harmony Mike Ringrose wrote: If I remember correctly doesn't gcc only issue a warning. I believe the ISO C standard states that there shall be a new line at the end of a non-empty file. we treat warnings as errors in DRLVM, which is useful. Is there an option in GCC not to warn on this specific line-ending problem? Unfortunately, I did not find any. On 10/12/06, Weldon Washburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/12/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Weldon Washburn wrote: A word of caution to those who are committing C/C++ code. There are unique features of Microsoft C/C++ that will cause a build failure on Linux and vice versa. For example, gcc expects that the end of a C/C++ file is a blank line. Microsoft does not. That's gotta be a bug. What version are you using? gcc 3.4.5. If its a bug, its unlikely we will fix gcc or wait for gcc to be fixed. The pragmatic approach would be to simply open the *.cpp files, go to the bottom and hit the return key. The point is simply beware that committing even platform independent code may break the build/test on an untested platform. The biggest disconnect seems to be between (surprise) windows and linux. Testing on one of each will go a long way to reducing problems. To reduce svn HEAD problems, it would be great if committers can test all commits on at least some windows box and some linux box. On 10/9/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/9/06, Mikhail Loenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? Since we have the problem with diversity of the hardware the committers own the following procedure might be reasonable: - If the commit does not depend on platform/OS, for example, a patch to some OS-independent Java API, he checks it only Windows with definite configuration. - If the commit may depend on the platform, for example, a patch to the system-dependent native code, he checks it on Windows with definite configuration and ask another committer to check it on other system. Thanks, Mikhail Thanks, Pavel -- Weldon Washburn 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] -- Weldon Washburn Intel Middleware Products Division -- 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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
On the 0x201 day of Apache Harmony Weldon Washburn wrote: On 10/12/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Weldon Washburn wrote: On 10/12/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Weldon Washburn wrote: A word of caution to those who are committing C/C++ code. There are unique features of Microsoft C/C++ that will cause a build failure on Linux and vice versa. For example, gcc expects that the end of a C/C++ file is a blank line. Microsoft does not. That's gotta be a bug. What version are you using? gcc 3.4.5. If its a bug, its unlikely we will fix gcc or wait for gcc to be fixed. Have you tried it on another version? No I have not tried it on another version. If Mike Ringrose is correct about the ISO spec, the basic problem is that MSVC compiler is not ISO compliant. I have hit this specific problem multiple times over the years. That is, code developed on windows laptop w/o a blank new line at the end will not compile on gcc. No I have not tried it on another version. If Mike Ringrose is correct about the ISO spec, the basic problem is that MSVC compiler is not ISO compliant. I have hit this specific problem multiple times over the years. That is, code developed on windows laptop w/o a blank new line at the end will not compile on gcc. The real issue is that there are a bunch of minor incompatibilities between MSVC and gcc. I would not recommend holding one's breath waiting for them to go away. My approach to the above is to simply test on both linux and windows before committing. +1 for checking on both winlin as a pre-commit (for C/C++). I recall many incompatibilities between the two compilers, so, checking both platforms is less of a burden than it is a benefit. Checking on various toolchains (gcc version, libc, binutils) seems not so obviously helpful to me. Because it is a heavy check, not giving much in terms of bug isolation. There are various real-life situations, when a toolchain version can influence on stability, but I think, they are not so common and are not worth the effort of checking before each commit. On compilation problems: let's take a more restrictive GCC (4.1?) and that would cook all compilation for us on Linux. -- 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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
Once every file is started with /* */ like comment (Apache license) the line endings are not a problem :) On 13 Oct 2006 14:05:17 +0700, Egor Pasko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the 0x201 day of Apache Harmony Mike Ringrose wrote: If I remember correctly doesn't gcc only issue a warning. I believe the ISO C standard states that there shall be a new line at the end of a non-empty file. we treat warnings as errors in DRLVM, which is useful. Is there an option in GCC not to warn on this specific line-ending problem? Unfortunately, I did not find any. On 10/12/06, Weldon Washburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/12/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Weldon Washburn wrote: A word of caution to those who are committing C/C++ code. There are unique features of Microsoft C/C++ that will cause a build failure on Linux and vice versa. For example, gcc expects that the end of a C/C++ file is a blank line. Microsoft does not. That's gotta be a bug. What version are you using? gcc 3.4.5. If its a bug, its unlikely we will fix gcc or wait for gcc to be fixed. The pragmatic approach would be to simply open the *.cpp files, go to the bottom and hit the return key. The point is simply beware that committing even platform independent code may break the build/test on an untested platform. The biggest disconnect seems to be between (surprise) windows and linux. Testing on one of each will go a long way to reducing problems. To reduce svn HEAD problems, it would be great if committers can test all commits on at least some windows box and some linux box. On 10/9/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/9/06, Mikhail Loenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? Since we have the problem with diversity of the hardware the committers own the following procedure might be reasonable: - If the commit does not depend on platform/OS, for example, a patch to some OS-independent Java API, he checks it only Windows with definite configuration. - If the commit may depend on the platform, for example, a patch to the system-dependent native code, he checks it on Windows with definite configuration and ask another committer to check it on other system. Thanks, Mikhail Thanks, Pavel -- Weldon Washburn 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] -- Weldon Washburn Intel Middleware Products Division -- 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] -- Mikhail Fursov
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
Weldon Washburn wrote: Have you tried it on another version? No I have not tried it on another version. If Mike Ringrose is correct about the ISO spec, the basic problem is that MSVC compiler is not ISO compliant. I have hit this specific problem multiple times over the years. That is, code developed on windows laptop w/o a blank new line at the end will not compile on gcc. No I have not tried it on another version. If Mike Ringrose is correct about the ISO spec, the basic problem is that MSVC compiler is not ISO compliant. I have hit this specific problem multiple times over the years. That is, code developed on windows laptop w/o a blank new line at the end will not compile on gcc. The real issue is that there are a bunch of minor incompatibilities between MSVC and gcc. I would not recommend holding one's breath waiting for them to go away. My approach to the above is to simply test on both linux and windows before committing. If it turns out to be a big deal, we can simply add a pre-commit target to the build that checks for things like that. It could also check for things like tabs. If possible, it could be a pre-commit hook for svn, but if not, in the build would be useful for those creating patches... geir - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
Here's a reference that I found. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-11/msg01568.html Here's a link to ISO C 1999 standard. Look at section 5.1.1.2, item #3. http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1124.pdf Mike Ringrose On 10/13/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Weldon Washburn wrote: Have you tried it on another version? No I have not tried it on another version. If Mike Ringrose is correct about the ISO spec, the basic problem is that MSVC compiler is not ISO compliant. I have hit this specific problem multiple times over the years. That is, code developed on windows laptop w/o a blank new line at the end will not compile on gcc. No I have not tried it on another version. If Mike Ringrose is correct about the ISO spec, the basic problem is that MSVC compiler is not ISO compliant. I have hit this specific problem multiple times over the years. That is, code developed on windows laptop w/o a blank new line at the end will not compile on gcc. The real issue is that there are a bunch of minor incompatibilities between MSVC and gcc. I would not recommend holding one's breath waiting for them to go away. My approach to the above is to simply test on both linux and windows before committing. If it turns out to be a big deal, we can simply add a pre-commit target to the build that checks for things like that. It could also check for things like tabs. If possible, it could be a pre-commit hook for svn, but if not, in the build would be useful for those creating patches... geir - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
On 10/11/06, Gregory Shimansky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A better solution would be if he sends us a patch which fixes his problem. It is open source, isn't it? If it doesn't work for you, fix it yourself. The more people care about some platform or configuration, the better it works. May be the best way is to join the both solutions in this case? So we will fix bugs on every platforms we can reach plus provide a priviliged support (I mean the stability of JRE) for some certain builds from the box: example WindowsXP, SUSE10... The quality and stability is often more attractive feature than performance for Java users. So we must do something to beat the RI here. -- Mikhail Fursov
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
A word of caution to those who are committing C/C++ code. There are unique features of Microsoft C/C++ that will cause a build failure on Linux and vice versa. For example, gcc expects that the end of a C/C++ file is a blank line. Microsoft does not. To reduce svn HEAD problems, it would be great if committers can test all commits on at least some windows box and some linux box. On 10/9/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/9/06, Mikhail Loenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? Since we have the problem with diversity of the hardware the committers own the following procedure might be reasonable: - If the commit does not depend on platform/OS, for example, a patch to some OS-independent Java API, he checks it only Windows with definite configuration. - If the commit may depend on the platform, for example, a patch to the system-dependent native code, he checks it on Windows with definite configuration and ask another committer to check it on other system. Thanks, Mikhail Thanks, Pavel -- Weldon Washburn Intel Middleware Products Division
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
Weldon Washburn wrote: A word of caution to those who are committing C/C++ code. There are unique features of Microsoft C/C++ that will cause a build failure on Linux and vice versa. For example, gcc expects that the end of a C/C++ file is a blank line. Microsoft does not. That's gotta be a bug. What version are you using? To reduce svn HEAD problems, it would be great if committers can test all commits on at least some windows box and some linux box. On 10/9/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/9/06, Mikhail Loenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? Since we have the problem with diversity of the hardware the committers own the following procedure might be reasonable: - If the commit does not depend on platform/OS, for example, a patch to some OS-independent Java API, he checks it only Windows with definite configuration. - If the commit may depend on the platform, for example, a patch to the system-dependent native code, he checks it on Windows with definite configuration and ask another committer to check it on other system. Thanks, Mikhail Thanks, Pavel -- Weldon Washburn 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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
On 10/12/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Weldon Washburn wrote: A word of caution to those who are committing C/C++ code. There are unique features of Microsoft C/C++ that will cause a build failure on Linux and vice versa. For example, gcc expects that the end of a C/C++ file is a blank line. Microsoft does not. That's gotta be a bug. What version are you using? gcc 3.4.5. If its a bug, its unlikely we will fix gcc or wait for gcc to be fixed. The pragmatic approach would be to simply open the *.cpp files, go to the bottom and hit the return key. The point is simply beware that committing even platform independent code may break the build/test on an untested platform. The biggest disconnect seems to be between (surprise) windows and linux. Testing on one of each will go a long way to reducing problems. To reduce svn HEAD problems, it would be great if committers can test all commits on at least some windows box and some linux box. On 10/9/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/9/06, Mikhail Loenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? Since we have the problem with diversity of the hardware the committers own the following procedure might be reasonable: - If the commit does not depend on platform/OS, for example, a patch to some OS-independent Java API, he checks it only Windows with definite configuration. - If the commit may depend on the platform, for example, a patch to the system-dependent native code, he checks it on Windows with definite configuration and ask another committer to check it on other system. Thanks, Mikhail Thanks, Pavel -- Weldon Washburn 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] -- Weldon Washburn Intel Middleware Products Division
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
If I remember correctly doesn't gcc only issue a warning. I believe the ISO C standard states that there shall be a new line at the end of a non-empty file. On 10/12/06, Weldon Washburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/12/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Weldon Washburn wrote: A word of caution to those who are committing C/C++ code. There are unique features of Microsoft C/C++ that will cause a build failure on Linux and vice versa. For example, gcc expects that the end of a C/C++ file is a blank line. Microsoft does not. That's gotta be a bug. What version are you using? gcc 3.4.5. If its a bug, its unlikely we will fix gcc or wait for gcc to be fixed. The pragmatic approach would be to simply open the *.cpp files, go to the bottom and hit the return key. The point is simply beware that committing even platform independent code may break the build/test on an untested platform. The biggest disconnect seems to be between (surprise) windows and linux. Testing on one of each will go a long way to reducing problems. To reduce svn HEAD problems, it would be great if committers can test all commits on at least some windows box and some linux box. On 10/9/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/9/06, Mikhail Loenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? Since we have the problem with diversity of the hardware the committers own the following procedure might be reasonable: - If the commit does not depend on platform/OS, for example, a patch to some OS-independent Java API, he checks it only Windows with definite configuration. - If the commit may depend on the platform, for example, a patch to the system-dependent native code, he checks it on Windows with definite configuration and ask another committer to check it on other system. Thanks, Mikhail Thanks, Pavel -- Weldon Washburn 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] -- Weldon Washburn Intel Middleware Products Division
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
Weldon Washburn wrote: On 10/12/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Weldon Washburn wrote: A word of caution to those who are committing C/C++ code. There are unique features of Microsoft C/C++ that will cause a build failure on Linux and vice versa. For example, gcc expects that the end of a C/C++ file is a blank line. Microsoft does not. That's gotta be a bug. What version are you using? gcc 3.4.5. If its a bug, its unlikely we will fix gcc or wait for gcc to be fixed. Have you tried it on another version? The pragmatic approach would be to simply open the *.cpp files, go to the bottom and hit the return key. The point is simply beware that committing even platform independent code may break the build/test on an untested platform. The biggest disconnect seems to be between (surprise) windows and linux. Testing on one of each will go a long way to reducing problems. To reduce svn HEAD problems, it would be great if committers can test all commits on at least some windows box and some linux box. On 10/9/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/9/06, Mikhail Loenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? Since we have the problem with diversity of the hardware the committers own the following procedure might be reasonable: - If the commit does not depend on platform/OS, for example, a patch to some OS-independent Java API, he checks it only Windows with definite configuration. - If the commit may depend on the platform, for example, a patch to the system-dependent native code, he checks it on Windows with definite configuration and ask another committer to check it on other system. Thanks, Mikhail Thanks, Pavel -- Weldon Washburn 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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
this I can believe :) Mike Ringrose wrote: If I remember correctly doesn't gcc only issue a warning. I believe the ISO C standard states that there shall be a new line at the end of a non-empty file. On 10/12/06, Weldon Washburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/12/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Weldon Washburn wrote: A word of caution to those who are committing C/C++ code. There are unique features of Microsoft C/C++ that will cause a build failure on Linux and vice versa. For example, gcc expects that the end of a C/C++ file is a blank line. Microsoft does not. That's gotta be a bug. What version are you using? gcc 3.4.5. If its a bug, its unlikely we will fix gcc or wait for gcc to be fixed. The pragmatic approach would be to simply open the *.cpp files, go to the bottom and hit the return key. The point is simply beware that committing even platform independent code may break the build/test on an untested platform. The biggest disconnect seems to be between (surprise) windows and linux. Testing on one of each will go a long way to reducing problems. To reduce svn HEAD problems, it would be great if committers can test all commits on at least some windows box and some linux box. On 10/9/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/9/06, Mikhail Loenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? Since we have the problem with diversity of the hardware the committers own the following procedure might be reasonable: - If the commit does not depend on platform/OS, for example, a patch to some OS-independent Java API, he checks it only Windows with definite configuration. - If the commit may depend on the platform, for example, a patch to the system-dependent native code, he checks it on Windows with definite configuration and ask another committer to check it on other system. Thanks, Mikhail Thanks, Pavel -- Weldon Washburn 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] -- Weldon Washburn 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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
Yes, It is reasonable and obvious. And I believe that committers are using it already. SY, Alexey 2006/10/10, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 10/9/06, Mikhail Loenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? Since we have the problem with diversity of the hardware the committers own the following procedure might be reasonable: - If the commit does not depend on platform/OS, for example, a patch to some OS-independent Java API, he checks it only Windows with definite configuration. - If the commit may depend on the platform, for example, a patch to the system-dependent native code, he checks it on Windows with definite configuration and ask another committer to check it on other system. Thanks, Mikhail Thanks, Pavel 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] - 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
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
I also think the diversity is generally good. Let's test Harmony on as many platfroms as possible and find as many problems as we can. But I also think that having at least one stable configuration is very important for those who wants to work on the new features. Doing this kind of work I'd prefer to have, say, 1 platfrom stable 99% of time than 99 platforms stable 1% of time. I deeply appreciate the responsible committers like you who test the patches thoroughly. But the overall process seems is not perfect since the workspace breaks up again and again. Unfortunately tightening pre-commit criteria seems to me the only way to prevent breakage. Thanks, Pavel On 10/9/06, Mark Hindess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9 October 2006 at 16:12, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 i s 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 hono r 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. Agreed. Broadest possible coverage is much more important. 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. You'd also need to mandate linker versions and assembler versions too. 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) I'm a committer. I test most patches on my ia32 thinkpad, which is running Debian/testing (mostly). I've got the following compilers installed: gcc-2.95 gcc-3.0 gcc-3.2 gcc-3.3 gcc-3.4 gcc-4.0 gcc-4.1 It turns out that my gcc-4.0 despite belonging to a package with a version number of 4.0.3-3 might not be gcc-4.0.3 because gcc -v says: gcc-4.0 (GCC) 4.0.4 20060507 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.3-3) So I guess my 4.0.3 and, for example, Geir's on ubuntu are probably different. I don't plan to compile a new version of 4.0.3 from fresh sources (or install the ubuntu version or anything like that) because: 1) I don't think it matters that much 2) Next week we'd probably find a binutils problem and I'm definitely not changing that. 3) I actually think diversity is ok. I've not really seen a huge amount of problems with different gcc versions. And if there are problems with compiler incompatibilities then I want them to receive focus quickly - breaking is a good way to get peoples attention. What I'd really not want is for problems to go unnoticed because all the committers have spent time setting up their machines to be identical. 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? No. 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? No. I agree that if all committers used exactly the same versions of compilers, linkers, etc. then we would most likely *see* fewer problems. However, I wouldn't sleep better because I'd know that the
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
Oh, again! Classlib is broken on Linux right now! :( And it was not me who did this to illustrate the problem. :) On 10/10/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also think the diversity is generally good. Let's test Harmony on as many platfroms as possible and find as many problems as we can. But I also think that having at least one stable configuration is very important for those who wants to work on the new features. Doing this kind of work I'd prefer to have, say, 1 platfrom stable 99% of time than 99 platforms stable 1% of time. I deeply appreciate the responsible committers like you who test the patches thoroughly. But the overall process seems is not perfect since the workspace breaks up again and again. Unfortunately tightening pre-commit criteria seems to me the only way to prevent breakage. Thanks, Pavel On 10/9/06, Mark Hindess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9 October 2006 at 16:12, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 i s 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 hono r 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. Agreed. Broadest possible coverage is much more important. 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. You'd also need to mandate linker versions and assembler versions too. 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) I'm a committer. I test most patches on my ia32 thinkpad, which is running Debian/testing (mostly). I've got the following compilers installed: gcc-2.95 gcc-3.0 gcc-3.2 gcc-3.3 gcc-3.4 gcc-4.0 gcc-4.1 It turns out that my gcc-4.0 despite belonging to a package with a version number of 4.0.3-3 might not be gcc-4.0.3 because gcc -v says: gcc-4.0 (GCC) 4.0.4 20060507 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.3-3) So I guess my 4.0.3 and, for example, Geir's on ubuntu are probably different. I don't plan to compile a new version of 4.0.3 from fresh sources (or install the ubuntu version or anything like that) because: 1) I don't think it matters that much 2) Next week we'd probably find a binutils problem and I'm definitely not changing that. 3) I actually think diversity is ok. I've not really seen a huge amount of problems with different gcc versions. And if there are problems with compiler incompatibilities then I want them to receive focus quickly - breaking is a good way to get peoples attention. What I'd really not want is for problems to go unnoticed because all the committers have spent time setting up their machines to be identical. 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? No. For example, if you use Linux/IA32 and another committer uses Linux/IA32, do you agree that it makes sense to
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
On 10 October 2006 at 18:52, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, again! Classlib is broken on Linux right now! :( And it was not me who did this to illustrate the problem. :) You are obviously using the wrong version of gcc! It compiles and all tests pass for me. ;-) -Mark. On 10/10/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also think the diversity is generally good. Let's test Harmony on as many platfroms as possible and find as many problems as we can. But I also think that having at least one stable configuration is very important for those who wants to work on the new features. Doing this kind of work I'd prefer to have, say, 1 platfrom stable 99% of time than 99 platforms stable 1% of time. I deeply appreciate the responsible committers like you who test the patches thoroughly. But the overall process seems is not perfect since the workspace breaks up again and again. Unfortunately tightening pre-commit criteria seems to me the only way to prevent breakage. Thanks, Pavel On 10/9/06, Mark Hindess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9 October 2006 at 16:12, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/9/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rana Dasgupta wrote: We need to check both release and debug builds...the binaries and t iming characteristics are too different. At this immediate stage of the project, I would suggest leaving out EM64T as part of mandatory testing( unles s it i s EM64T specific functionality, eg., codegen ). Too few contributors and committers have access to it. We are not yet at a stage where we ca n make this mandatory. If possible all submissions should be tested( by submitters ) on al l 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 a n hono r system, we can't attach 6 before and after test logs to each JIRA submission. The committer could randomly check on one or more combi nation , ...the more the better obviously. In some cases, submissions will be platform specific ( eg., very ne w code like GC V5, platform specific bug fixes or a simple case of develop er 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 i s not conducive to building a broad community of contributors since ver y 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. Agreed. Broadest possible coverage is much more important. 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. You'd also need to mandate linker versions and assembler versions too. 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) I'm a committer. I test most patches on my ia32 thinkpad, which is running Debian/testing (mostly). I've got the following compilers installed: gcc-2.95 gcc-3.0 gcc-3.2 gcc-3.3 gcc-3.4 gcc-4.0 gcc-4.1 It turns out that my gcc-4.0 despite belonging to a package with a version number of 4.0.3-3 might not be gcc-4.0.3 because gcc -v says: gcc-4.0 (GCC) 4.0.4 20060507 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.3-3) So I guess my 4.0.3 and, for example, Geir's on ubuntu are probably different. I don't plan to compile a new version of 4.0.3 from fresh sources (or install the ubuntu version or anything like that) because: 1) I don't think it matters that much 2) Next week we'd probably find a binutils problem and I'm definitely not changing that. 3) I actually think diversity is ok. I've not really seen a huge amount of problems with different gcc versions. And if there are problems with compiler incompatibilities then I want them to receive focus quickly - breaking is a good way to get peoples attention. What I'd
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
On 10/10/06, Mark Hindess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10 October 2006 at 18:52, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, again! Classlib is broken on Linux right now! :( And it was not me who did this to illustrate the problem. :) You are obviously using the wrong version of gcc! It compiles and all tests pass for me. ;-) Ok, let's agree which one we will use. I'll switch to it and will be happy! :) -Mark. On 10/10/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also think the diversity is generally good. Let's test Harmony on as many platfroms as possible and find as many problems as we can. But I also think that having at least one stable configuration is very important for those who wants to work on the new features. Doing this kind of work I'd prefer to have, say, 1 platfrom stable 99% of time than 99 platforms stable 1% of time. I deeply appreciate the responsible committers like you who test the patches thoroughly. But the overall process seems is not perfect since the workspace breaks up again and again. Unfortunately tightening pre-commit criteria seems to me the only way to prevent breakage. Thanks, Pavel On 10/9/06, Mark Hindess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9 October 2006 at 16:12, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/9/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rana Dasgupta wrote: We need to check both release and debug builds...the binaries and t iming characteristics are too different. At this immediate stage of the project, I would suggest leaving out EM64T as part of mandatory testing( unles s it i s EM64T specific functionality, eg., codegen ). Too few contributors and committers have access to it. We are not yet at a stage where we ca n make this mandatory. If possible all submissions should be tested( by submitters ) on al l 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 a n hono r system, we can't attach 6 before and after test logs to each JIRA submission. The committer could randomly check on one or more combi nation , ...the more the better obviously. In some cases, submissions will be platform specific ( eg., very ne w code like GC V5, platform specific bug fixes or a simple case of develop er 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 i s not conducive to building a broad community of contributors since ver y 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. Agreed. Broadest possible coverage is much more important. 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. You'd also need to mandate linker versions and assembler versions too. 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) I'm a committer. I test most patches on my ia32 thinkpad, which is running Debian/testing (mostly). I've got the following compilers installed: gcc-2.95 gcc-3.0 gcc-3.2 gcc-3.3 gcc-3.4 gcc-4.0 gcc-4.1 It turns out that my gcc-4.0 despite belonging to a package with a version number of 4.0.3-3 might not be gcc-4.0.3 because gcc -v says: gcc-4.0 (GCC) 4.0.4 20060507 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.3-3) So I guess my 4.0.3 and, for example, Geir's on ubuntu are probably different. I don't plan to compile a new version of 4.0.3 from fresh sources (or install the ubuntu version or anything like that) because: 1) I don't think it matters that much 2) Next week we'd probably find a binutils problem and I'm definitely not changing that. 3) I actually think diversity is ok. I've not really seen a huge amount of problems with different gcc versions. And if there are problems with
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
On the 0x1FE day of Apache Harmony Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote: On 10/10/06, Mark Hindess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10 October 2006 at 18:52, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, again! Classlib is broken on Linux right now! :( And it was not me who did this to illustrate the problem. :) You are obviously using the wrong version of gcc! It compiles and all tests pass for me. ;-) Ok, let's agree which one we will use. I'll switch to it and will be happy! :) why hide from problems? let's fix 'em all (jokingly) -Mark. On 10/10/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also think the diversity is generally good. Let's test Harmony on as many platfroms as possible and find as many problems as we can. But I also think that having at least one stable configuration is very important for those who wants to work on the new features. Doing this kind of work I'd prefer to have, say, 1 platfrom stable 99% of time than 99 platforms stable 1% of time. I deeply appreciate the responsible committers like you who test the patches thoroughly. But the overall process seems is not perfect since the workspace breaks up again and again. Unfortunately tightening pre-commit criteria seems to me the only way to prevent breakage. Thanks, Pavel On 10/9/06, Mark Hindess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9 October 2006 at 16:12, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/9/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rana Dasgupta wrote: We need to check both release and debug builds...the binaries and t iming characteristics are too different. At this immediate stage of the project, I would suggest leaving out EM64T as part of mandatory testing( unles s it i s EM64T specific functionality, eg., codegen ). Too few contributors and committers have access to it. We are not yet at a stage where we ca n make this mandatory. If possible all submissions should be tested( by submitters ) on al l 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 a n hono r system, we can't attach 6 before and after test logs to each JIRA submission. The committer could randomly check on one or more combi nation , ...the more the better obviously. In some cases, submissions will be platform specific ( eg., very ne w code like GC V5, platform specific bug fixes or a simple case of develop er 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 i s not conducive to building a broad community of contributors since ver y 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. Agreed. Broadest possible coverage is much more important. 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. You'd also need to mandate linker versions and assembler versions too. 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) I'm a committer. I test most patches on my ia32 thinkpad, which is running Debian/testing (mostly). I've got the following compilers installed: gcc-2.95 gcc-3.0 gcc-3.2 gcc-3.3 gcc-3.4 gcc-4.0 gcc-4.1 It turns out that my gcc-4.0 despite belonging to a package with a version number of 4.0.3-3 might not be gcc-4.0.3 because gcc -v says: gcc-4.0 (GCC) 4.0.4 20060507 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.3-3) So I guess my
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
On 10 Oct 2006 19:29:06 +0700, Egor Pasko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why hide from problems? let's fix 'em all (jokingly) Is it possible with Linux? :) -- Mikhail Fursov
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
On the 0x1FE day of Apache Harmony Mikhail Fursov wrote: On 10 Oct 2006 19:29:06 +0700, Egor Pasko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why hide from problems? let's fix 'em all (jokingly) Is it possible with Linux? :) holy war? :) -- 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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
Nope, just the fact that there always will configurations we do not support. And the best we can do is to sum all of those we do support. For example: Linux user may read the configuration we do support, install all of the needed environment and run the VM happily. It could better solution (or alternative) for user then asking a forum and waiting a fix. On 10 Oct 2006 19:45:49 +0700, Egor Pasko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the 0x1FE day of Apache Harmony Mikhail Fursov wrote: On 10 Oct 2006 19:29:06 +0700, Egor Pasko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why hide from problems? let's fix 'em all (jokingly) Is it possible with Linux? :) holy war? :) -- 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] -- Mikhail Fursov
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 17:28 Mikhail Fursov wrote: Nope, just the fact that there always will configurations we do not support. And the best we can do is to sum all of those we do support. For example: Linux user may read the configuration we do support, install all of the needed environment and run the VM happily. It could better solution (or alternative) for user then asking a forum and waiting a fix. A better solution would be if he sends us a patch which fixes his problem. It is open source, isn't it? If it doesn't work for you, fix it yourself. The more people care about some platform or configuration, the better it works. Being more serious, is gcc version so important? I mean gcc is slowly hardening rules of C/C++ language interpretation. That is the reason why we had problems moving from 3.3 to 3.4 and then to 4.x. Personally I use 4.1.1 which is the latest stable for Gentoo and it compiles harmony ok. The warnings which were fixed for 4.x don't cause problems on older versions. Should be also specify compilation flags? Like we support -mprefetch-loop-arrays but don't support -funroll-all-loops? It looks silly to me. All software has bugs and we may encounter bugs in gcc just like everyone else. Those who have problems with some particular version can investigate and possibly find a solution or workaround. Those who don't want to deal with it can use a binary build. On 10 Oct 2006 19:45:49 +0700, Egor Pasko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the 0x1FE day of Apache Harmony Mikhail Fursov wrote: On 10 Oct 2006 19:29:06 +0700, Egor Pasko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why hide from problems? let's fix 'em all (jokingly) Is it possible with Linux? :) holy war? :) -- Gregory Shimansky, 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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
On 9 October 2006 at 16:12, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 i s 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 hono r 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. Agreed. Broadest possible coverage is much more important. 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. You'd also need to mandate linker versions and assembler versions too. 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) I'm a committer. I test most patches on my ia32 thinkpad, which is running Debian/testing (mostly). I've got the following compilers installed: gcc-2.95 gcc-3.0 gcc-3.2 gcc-3.3 gcc-3.4 gcc-4.0 gcc-4.1 It turns out that my gcc-4.0 despite belonging to a package with a version number of 4.0.3-3 might not be gcc-4.0.3 because gcc -v says: gcc-4.0 (GCC) 4.0.4 20060507 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.3-3) So I guess my 4.0.3 and, for example, Geir's on ubuntu are probably different. I don't plan to compile a new version of 4.0.3 from fresh sources (or install the ubuntu version or anything like that) because: 1) I don't think it matters that much 2) Next week we'd probably find a binutils problem and I'm definitely not changing that. 3) I actually think diversity is ok. I've not really seen a huge amount of problems with different gcc versions. And if there are problems with compiler incompatibilities then I want them to receive focus quickly - breaking is a good way to get peoples attention. What I'd really not want is for problems to go unnoticed because all the committers have spent time setting up their machines to be identical. 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? No. 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? No. I agree that if all committers used exactly the same versions of compilers, linkers, etc. then we would most likely *see* fewer problems. However, I wouldn't sleep better because I'd know that the problems were still there waiting to bite us later. Personally I'd rather see problems as soon as possible. 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. Why? If a contributor submits a patch that they tested with gcc 4.0.3 but that doesn't work for me with my gcc 4.0.[3/4] whatever it really is then I'm really not going to be upset about it. It just means we've learnt a valuable lesson that we'd not have learnt if I was running the identical 4.0.3. Contributors don't have to test their patches at all? I don't think committers should have to test them either then. ;-) chantingEqual rights
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
On Oct 9, 2006, at 8:52 AM, Mark Hindess wrote: On 9 October 2006 at 16:12, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 i s 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 hono r 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. Agreed. Broadest possible coverage is much more important. 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. You'd also need to mandate linker versions and assembler versions too. Which I think we should do. I can see no good reason for not doing this other than versions people port harmony too not having a given version of the toolset available, but that's a problem I'd love to have :) [snip] I'm a committer. I test most patches on my ia32 thinkpad, which is running Debian/testing (mostly). I've got the following compilers installed: gcc-2.95 gcc-3.0 gcc-3.2 gcc-3.3 gcc-3.4 gcc-4.0 gcc-4.1 It turns out that my gcc-4.0 despite belonging to a package with a version number of 4.0.3-3 might not be gcc-4.0.3 because gcc -v says: gcc-4.0 (GCC) 4.0.4 20060507 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.3-3) So I guess my 4.0.3 and, for example, Geir's on ubuntu are probably different. I don't plan to compile a new version of 4.0.3 from fresh sources (or install the ubuntu version or anything like that) because: 1) I don't think it matters that much 2) Next week we'd probably find a binutils problem and I'm definitely not changing that. 3) I actually think diversity is ok. I've not really seen a huge amount of problems with different gcc versions. And if there are problems with compiler incompatibilities then I want them to receive focus quickly - breaking is a good way to get peoples attention. What I'd really not want is for problems to go unnoticed because all the committers have spent time setting up their machines to be identical. Agreed, but they should be close, I believe. geir - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
On 10/9/06, Mikhail Loenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? Since we have the problem with diversity of the hardware the committers own the following procedure might be reasonable: - If the commit does not depend on platform/OS, for example, a patch to some OS-independent Java API, he checks it only Windows with definite configuration. - If the commit may depend on the platform, for example, a patch to the system-dependent native code, he checks it on Windows with definite configuration and ask another committer to check it on other system. Thanks, Mikhail Thanks, Pavel 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] - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
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. 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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
Tim Ellison 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. Well, exactly, sorta. While I think that we can't mandate, I'd like to see if we can get a community 'meme' going where people w/ different configs try patches and just report into the JIRA that things worked... would give the committer that handles the patch a bit more confidence... geir Regards, Tim - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
I'm also not sure that ALL the commiters has Windows and Linux at the same time... And Nathan is an example :) SY, Alexey 2006/10/6, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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] -- 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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
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. 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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
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]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
2006/10/6, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What would you do if you need to commit a patch to some Linux-specific code in VM? And I do not have Linux? I will not commit this patch of course. And will ask another committer to do this. Pavel, again. I understand your concern and I think that testing a patch different platforms is really good approach. But I'm afraid that it is unreal to set this as a requirement for all the commiters and all the patches. But this is should not be a big problem. Because we have a regression tests. So if one committer commits something on Linux and accidentally breaks something on Windows another community member will catch it. 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. 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 :
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote: What would you do if you need to commit a patch to some Linux-specific code in VM? Ask someone w/ a linux box to check it. 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. 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] - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
On 10/7/06, Alexey Petrenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2006/10/6, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What would you do if you need to commit a patch to some Linux-specific code in VM? And I do not have Linux? I will not commit this patch of course. And will ask another committer to do this. Right, you won't commit patches that require checking on the platform you don't have. This is not because the criteria require this, this is because you understand that you can't test it properly. I propose that we introduce the criteria which will support our common sense and make our development more determined. Pavel, again. I understand your concern and I think that testing a patch different platforms is really good approach. But I'm afraid that it is unreal to set this as a requirement for all the commiters and all the patches. I think this depends on the requirements. Would you agree for example, to switch to a particular compiler version if all committers agree to use it? This might be a first requirement. But this is should not be a big problem. Because we have a regression tests. So if one committer commits something on Linux and accidentally breaks something on Windows another community member will catch it. The problem is that a concious contributor can not pass tests and submit his/her patches until code is broken. Also a contributor can not be sure passing all tests is enough to make sure the committer will pass thesame tests with this patch. I'm not sure even that currently all the committers use the same GCC version. Anyway, thanks for your attention to the problem! 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. 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
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
On 10/6/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. 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 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. Thanks.
Re: [general] define pre-commit testing configs to gain the stability
Rana Dasgupta wrote: On 10/6/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. 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 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. I have a machine now :) I will be EM64T-ing all the live-long day! 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. We don't really accept them. 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. I think that just having a submitter note which platforms have been tested is good. Having others test and note their results is good too. Best is getting community CI systems set up. That EM64T system will be for that, and I'll have a linux 32 bit machine also doing it. 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. Thanks. - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
