[general] testing for 6.0M1?

[Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com>]

I've merged the latest commits for 5.0M11 across to the java6 branch
at r807351.  Obviously this week we should focus on testing 5.0M11
(r807222) so we can hopefully start a vote on Friday but feel free to
start testing this revision of the java6 branch so that we can consider
whether we could make a 6.0M1 release a week after the 5.0M11 release.

I see quite a few test failures but that doesn't mean we shouldn't
release.  We have to start somewhere and we can try to reduce the
failures for subsequent releases.

What do others think?

Regards,
 Mark.

Re: [general] testing for 6.0M1?

[Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com>]

In message <4A...@googlemail.com>, Oliver Deakin writes:
>
> Mark Hindess wrote:
> > I've merged the latest commits for 5.0M11 across to the java6 branch
> > at r807351.  Obviously this week we should focus on testing 5.0M11
> > (r807222) so we can hopefully start a vote on Friday but feel free to
> > start testing this revision of the java6 branch so that we can consider
> > whether we could make a 6.0M1 release a week after the 5.0M11 release.
> >
> > I see quite a few test failures but that doesn't mean we shouldn't
> > release.  We have to start somewhere and we can try to reduce the
> > failures for subsequent releases.
> >
> > What do others think?
> >   
> 
> Sounds good to me. I just ran the tests on Windows x86 and I see 81 
> failures and 43 errors. The vast majority are JDWP tests (known and I 
> have raised JIRAs for them - I don't think these should hold up 6.0M1) 
> and TreeMap tests (71 failures and 18 errors).
> 
> The cause of the TreeMap failures is not obvious (could be differences 
> between Java 5 and 6 spec that the tests are not reflecting?), but since 
> they seem centralised and all the other classlib tests seem in good 
> shape, I would be willing to have a JIRA raised for these with a target 
> of fixing them for 6.0M2 and go ahead with the milestone.
> 
> Does anyone see these same failures/agree?

Yes.  That's pretty similar to what I see on linux/x86_64.  I agree it
shouldn't stop us making a release.

Tim, yes.  I agree we should end the code freeze on classlib/trunk and
jdktools/trunk (but obviously *not* drlvm) when we conclude the 5.0M11
vote.

Regards,
 Mark.

Re: [general] testing for 6.0M1?

[Oliver Deakin <ol...@googlemail.com>]

Mark Hindess wrote:
> I've merged the latest commits for 5.0M11 across to the java6 branch
> at r807351.  Obviously this week we should focus on testing 5.0M11
> (r807222) so we can hopefully start a vote on Friday but feel free to
> start testing this revision of the java6 branch so that we can consider
> whether we could make a 6.0M1 release a week after the 5.0M11 release.
>
> I see quite a few test failures but that doesn't mean we shouldn't
> release.  We have to start somewhere and we can try to reduce the
> failures for subsequent releases.
>
> What do others think?
>   

Sounds good to me. I just ran the tests on Windows x86 and I see 81 
failures and 43 errors. The vast majority are JDWP tests (known and I 
have raised JIRAs for them - I don't think these should hold up 6.0M1) 
and TreeMap tests (71 failures and 18 errors).

The cause of the TreeMap failures is not obvious (could be differences 
between Java 5 and 6 spec that the tests are not reflecting?), but since 
they seem centralised and all the other classlib tests seem in good 
shape, I would be willing to have a JIRA raised for these with a target 
of fixing them for 6.0M2 and go ahead with the milestone.

Does anyone see these same failures/agree?

Regards,
Oliver

> Regards,
>  Mark.
>
>
>
>
>   

-- 
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: [general] testing for 6.0M1?

[Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>]

On 24/Aug/2009 21:05, Mark Hindess wrote:
> I've merged the latest commits for 5.0M11 across to the java6 branch
> at r807351.  Obviously this week we should focus on testing 5.0M11
> (r807222) so we can hopefully start a vote on Friday but feel free to
> start testing this revision of the java6 branch so that we can consider
> whether we could make a 6.0M1 release a week after the 5.0M11 release.
> 
> I see quite a few test failures but that doesn't mean we shouldn't
> release.  We have to start somewhere and we can try to reduce the
> failures for subsequent releases.
> 
> What do others think?

+1 provided the code free for the 5.0 branch is lifted straight after
the 5.0M11 vote passes.

Regards,
Tim