You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Gregory Shimansky <gs...@gmail.com> on 2006/11/21 14:07:01 UTC
Re: svn commit: r477149 - in /harmony/enhanced/drlvm/trunk/build/make:
targets/kernel.test.xml test.properties
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
> Gregory Shimansky wrote:
>>
>> I would also like a switch. I don't like it that a change which
>> knowingly introduces problems with acceptance tests is committed
>> without discussion. Should we discard kernel tests from drlvm commits
>> until they are fixed? I think that there was an agreement about no
>> regression. So now all commits to drlvm are blocked.
>>
>
>
> Can we just declare that it's time to drive to getting these tests
> fixed????
I never wrote that we shouldn't fix these bugs. I just complained that
instead of breaking things like this, the new mode could be introduced
as an option to allow us to fix tests first, then switch to it.
> I'll start a new thread.
--
Gregory
Re: svn commit: r477149 - in /harmony/enhanced/drlvm/trunk/build/make:
targets/kernel.test.xml test.properties
Posted by Gregory Shimansky <gs...@gmail.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
> Gregory Shimansky wrote:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregory Shimansky wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just complained that instead of breaking things like this, the new
>>>> mode could be introduced as an option to allow us to fix tests
>>>> first, then switch to it.
>>>
>>> I'm missing something though - what broke because of this change?
>>
>> Well I assumed that kernel tests crashes on windows XP are because of
>> the new mode when all tests are executed in the same VM. When test is
>> executed separately it doesn't crash. I am going to try to find the
>> problem now.
>
> If that's the case, I'd argue that we were already broken, and we just
> didn't know it.
Yes this is true.
But imagine that I've created a new test that fails on VM. Should I
immediately add it to acceptance tests, or should I fix the problem
(announce about it in case I cannot do it myself) and only then add this
test as a regression?
The same happened with kernel tests. The switch was done before the
problem was fixed. I think it is not right.
--
Gregory
Re: svn commit: r477149 - in /harmony/enhanced/drlvm/trunk/build/make:
targets/kernel.test.xml test.properties
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Gregory Shimansky wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>> Gregory Shimansky wrote:
>>
>>> I just complained that instead of breaking things like this, the new
>>> mode could be introduced as an option to allow us to fix tests first,
>>> then switch to it.
>>
>> I'm missing something though - what broke because of this change?
>
> Well I assumed that kernel tests crashes on windows XP are because of
> the new mode when all tests are executed in the same VM. When test is
> executed separately it doesn't crash. I am going to try to find the
> problem now.
If that's the case, I'd argue that we were already broken, and we just
didn't know it.
geir
>
Re: svn commit: r477149 - in /harmony/enhanced/drlvm/trunk/build/make:
targets/kernel.test.xml test.properties
Posted by Gregory Shimansky <gs...@gmail.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
> Gregory Shimansky wrote:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregory Shimansky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would also like a switch. I don't like it that a change which
>>>> knowingly introduces problems with acceptance tests is committed
>>>> without discussion. Should we discard kernel tests from drlvm
>>>> commits until they are fixed? I think that there was an agreement
>>>> about no regression. So now all commits to drlvm are blocked.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can we just declare that it's time to drive to getting these tests
>>> fixed????
>>
>> I never wrote that we shouldn't fix these bugs.
>
> I know.
>
>> I just complained that instead of breaking things like this, the new
>> mode could be introduced as an option to allow us to fix tests first,
>> then switch to it.
>
> I'm missing something though - what broke because of this change?
Well I assumed that kernel tests crashes on windows XP are because of
the new mode when all tests are executed in the same VM. When test is
executed separately it doesn't crash. I am going to try to find the
problem now.
--
Gregory
Re: svn commit: r477149 - in /harmony/enhanced/drlvm/trunk/build/make:
targets/kernel.test.xml test.properties
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Gregory Shimansky wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>> Gregory Shimansky wrote:
>>>
>>> I would also like a switch. I don't like it that a change which
>>> knowingly introduces problems with acceptance tests is committed
>>> without discussion. Should we discard kernel tests from drlvm commits
>>> until they are fixed? I think that there was an agreement about no
>>> regression. So now all commits to drlvm are blocked.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Can we just declare that it's time to drive to getting these tests
>> fixed????
>
> I never wrote that we shouldn't fix these bugs.
I know.
> I just complained that
> instead of breaking things like this, the new mode could be introduced
> as an option to allow us to fix tests first, then switch to it.
I'm missing something though - what broke because of this change?
geir