This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Release Quality Control


On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 10:04:29PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>  o As far as I am aware of(!), in the past we didn't actually ensure our
>  quality criteria for primary platforms, for example, in that we did not
>  solicit   current test results etc. for primary platforms where these
>  were missing and explicitly verify that everything was fine.

Let's try to avoid creating new bureaucracy.

In my opinion, the RM is in the best position to keep track of this, or
to ask for assistance if the bookkeeping is too much.  He is the one
with the best feeling for what the deadlines are going to be.

>  o Even if secondary platform do not absolutely need to work, we could try
>  to proactively solicit test results (more) proactively, even for tertiary
>  platforms.

When the RM puts out a prerelease tarball, this should be interpreted as a
request that the keepers of the secondary platforms do tests, ASAP.
This could be explicitly mentioned when Gaby or Mark puts out an
announcement, but it should be understood in any case.  If we go through
three prerelease tarballs and it isn't noticed that, say, Solaris X86
doesn't bootstrap, well, it wasn't a primary platform and no one who cared
about it bothered to do tests, so sorry.  The lesson to be learned is that
people who do care will have an incentive to get involved next time.

> (One simple way would be to announce some "last" pre-release snapshot
> on the gcc-announce list and ask for testers, waiting, say, one week
> before the actual release.)

I don't think that this is workable.  Every pre-release tarball should be
treated as potentially "last": if it's OK, it ships, if not, there's
another one, until the criteria are met.

The 3.2.3-pre tarball Gaby put out has problems on Solaris, so we'll need
at least one more.  But if there's a secondary platform you (general you,
not Gerald) care about and there isn't an already posted test result, I
strongly suggest:

1) try to build and test Gaby's prerelease
2) if that fails, try to build and test from the CVS 3.2 branch
3) let the gcc list know about the result!

If you run a minority platform and no user of that platform does this, it
is likely that 3.2.3 won't work on your platform, and it will not be
Gaby's or Mark's fault.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]