You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com> on 2007/05/30 15:47:13 UTC
[vote] HARMONY-3363 - Alternative Bytecode Verifier
We now have all requisite paperwork in place for
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3363, so let's vote to accept:
[ ] +1 Accept this contribution
[ ] -1 Reject because...
As usual, 3 days unless someone complains they need more time.
Re: [vote] HARMONY-3363 - Alternative Bytecode Verifier
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
+1
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> We now have all requisite paperwork in place for
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3363, so let's vote to accept:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept this contribution
> [ ] -1 Reject because...
>
> As usual, 3 days unless someone complains they need more time.
>
Re: [vote] HARMONY-3363 - Alternative Bytecode Verifier
Posted by Gregory Shimansky <gs...@apache.org>.
+1
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> We now have all requisite paperwork in place for
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3363, so let's vote to accept:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept this contribution
> [ ] -1 Reject because...
>
> As usual, 3 days unless someone complains they need more time.
>
--
Gregory
Re: [vote] HARMONY-3363 - Alternative Bytecode Verifier
Posted by Oliver Deakin <ol...@googlemail.com>.
+1
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> We now have all requisite paperwork in place for
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3363, so let's vote to
> accept:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept this contribution
> [ ] -1 Reject because...
>
> As usual, 3 days unless someone complains they need more time.
>
--
Oliver Deakin
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Re: [vote] HARMONY-3363 - Alternative Bytecode Verifier
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
+1
2007/5/30, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>:
> We now have all requisite paperwork in place for
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3363, so let's vote to accept:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept this contribution
> [ ] -1 Reject because...
>
> As usual, 3 days unless someone complains they need more time.
>
Re: [vote] HARMONY-3363 - Alternative Bytecode Verifier
Posted by Egor Pasko <eg...@gmail.com>.
+1
On the 0x2E6 day of Apache Harmony Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> We now have all requisite paperwork in place for
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3363, so let's vote to accept:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept this contribution
> [ ] -1 Reject because...
>
> As usual, 3 days unless someone complains they need more time.
>
--
Egor Pasko
Re: [vote] HARMONY-3363 - Alternative Bytecode Verifier
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>.
+1
On 5/30/07, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We now have all requisite paperwork in place for
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3363, so let's vote to accept:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept this contribution
> [ ] -1 Reject because...
>
> As usual, 3 days unless someone complains they need more time.
>
Re: [vote] HARMONY-3363 - Alternative Bytecode Verifier
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> Tim,
> Thank you for explanations.
>
> I'm not suggesting to reject a contribution. I like an idea of
> Mikhail's algorithm which checks data flow, though I failed to
> understand how subroutine boundaries in one pass. I missed any
> reference to this in documentation as well.
>
>> Accepting here does not mean this contribution will be the one and only
>> bytecode verifier going forward.
>
> We agreed to keep duplication out of Harmony. I personally believe we
> need strong arguments for any duplication, and I do not see enough
> arguments to have two verifiers.
No we didn't -- we have two JITs and two GCs, and we maintain the
ability to run on multiple VMs. Sometimes having a choice is good.
We may not want two verifiers, but this vote is not deciding that.
Regards,
Tim
Re: [vote] HARMONY-3363 - Alternative Bytecode Verifier
Posted by Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>.
Tim,
Thank you for explanations.
I'm not suggesting to reject a contribution. I like an idea of
Mikhail's algorithm which checks data flow, though I failed to
understand how subroutine boundaries in one pass. I missed any
reference to this in documentation as well.
> Accepting here does not mean this contribution will be the one and only
> bytecode verifier going forward.
We agreed to keep duplication out of Harmony. I personally believe we
need strong arguments for any duplication, and I do not see enough
arguments to have two verifiers.
Honestly, the thing I'm trying to avoid is a loss of my precious life
time. Currently I was looking into bugs in existing verifier, but
there are many other interesting things as well. I would be grateful
if any decision is taken on verifier replacement, merge, or whatever.
On 5/31/07, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> > What do you mean by accepting? Does it mean that you want to commit it?
>
> Accepting means that
> - pmc members have had a chance to verify the basis of the contribution
> (through accompanying paperwork that is not generally available to all)
>
> - everyone gets a chance to express an opinion about whether the
> contribution is in keeping with the goals of the project
>
> We are interested in any reason why people think we should not accept
> this code. The vote is conducted in public so everyone gets a voice.
> We just ask that if you vote 'reject' you also tell us why.
>
> Once accepted the code can be committed into our SVN repository, but
> that is not the end of the discussion and evaluation. Collectively we
> may then decide that the contribution is new functionality that simply
> adds to the existing body of code, or that we should replace existing
> functionality with the incoming contribution, or that we maintain it as
> an alternative implementation, etc.
>
> Accepting here does not mean this contribution will be the one and only
> bytecode verifier going forward.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
--
With best regards,
Alexei,
ESSD, Intel
Re: [vote] HARMONY-3363 - Alternative Bytecode Verifier
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> What do you mean by accepting? Does it mean that you want to commit it?
Accepting means that
- pmc members have had a chance to verify the basis of the contribution
(through accompanying paperwork that is not generally available to all)
- everyone gets a chance to express an opinion about whether the
contribution is in keeping with the goals of the project
We are interested in any reason why people think we should not accept
this code. The vote is conducted in public so everyone gets a voice.
We just ask that if you vote 'reject' you also tell us why.
Once accepted the code can be committed into our SVN repository, but
that is not the end of the discussion and evaluation. Collectively we
may then decide that the contribution is new functionality that simply
adds to the existing body of code, or that we should replace existing
functionality with the incoming contribution, or that we maintain it as
an alternative implementation, etc.
Accepting here does not mean this contribution will be the one and only
bytecode verifier going forward.
Regards,
Tim
Re: [vote] HARMONY-3363 - Alternative Bytecode Verifier
Posted by Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>.
Mikhail,
What do you mean by accepting? Does it mean that you want to commit it?
On 5/30/07, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We now have all requisite paperwork in place for
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3363, so let's vote to accept:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept this contribution
> [ ] -1 Reject because...
>
> As usual, 3 days unless someone complains they need more time.
>
--
With best regards,
Alexei,
ESSD, Intel
Re: [vote] HARMONY-3363 - Alternative Bytecode Verifier
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
+1 from Gregory, Alexey P, Mikhail F, Mark, Egor, Nathan, Pavel O, Alexey V,
Tim, Stepan, Oliver, Mikhail L
no other votes
vote passed
2007/5/30, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>:
> We now have all requisite paperwork in place for
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3363, so let's vote to accept:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept this contribution
> [ ] -1 Reject because...
>
> As usual, 3 days unless someone complains they need more time.
>
Re: [vote] HARMONY-3363 - Alternative Bytecode Verifier
Posted by Mikhail Fursov <mi...@gmail.com>.
+1 from me too.
On 5/31/07, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1
> 2007/5/30, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>:
> > We now have all requisite paperwork in place for
> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3363, so let's vote to
> accept:
> >
> > [ ] +1 Accept this contribution
> > [ ] -1 Reject because...
> >
> > As usual, 3 days unless someone complains they need more time.
> >
>
--
Mikhail Fursov
Re: [vote] HARMONY-3363 - Alternative Bytecode Verifier
Posted by Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com>.
+1
2007/5/30, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>:
> We now have all requisite paperwork in place for
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3363, so let's vote to accept:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept this contribution
> [ ] -1 Reject because...
>
> As usual, 3 days unless someone complains they need more time.
>
Re: [vote] HARMONY-3363 - Alternative Bytecode Verifier
Posted by Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com>.
+1
-Mark
On 30 May 2007 at 20:47, "Mikhail Loenko" <ml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We now have all requisite paperwork in place for
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3363, so let's vote to accept:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept this contribution
> [ ] -1 Reject because...
>
> As usual, 3 days unless someone complains they need more time.
>
Re: [vote] HARMONY-3363 - Alternative Bytecode Verifier
Posted by Stepan Mishura <st...@gmail.com>.
+1
-Stepan.
On 5/30/07, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We now have all requisite paperwork in place for
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3363, so let's vote to accept:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept this contribution
> [ ] -1 Reject because...
>
> As usual, 3 days unless someone complains they need more time.
>
Re: [vote] HARMONY-3363 - Alternative Bytecode Verifier
Posted by Alexey Varlamov <al...@gmail.com>.
+1
2007/5/31, Pavel Ozhdikhin <pa...@gmail.com>:
> +1
>
> Thanks,
> Pavel
>
> On 5/30/07, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We now have all requisite paperwork in place for
> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3363, so let's vote to accept:
> >
> > [ ] +1 Accept this contribution
> > [ ] -1 Reject because...
> >
> > As usual, 3 days unless someone complains they need more time.
> >
>
Re: [vote] HARMONY-3363 - Alternative Bytecode Verifier
Posted by Pavel Ozhdikhin <pa...@gmail.com>.
+1
Thanks,
Pavel
On 5/30/07, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We now have all requisite paperwork in place for
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3363, so let's vote to accept:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept this contribution
> [ ] -1 Reject because...
>
> As usual, 3 days unless someone complains they need more time.
>