[M3devel] release status [was something else]

[Olaf Wagner]

Quoting Jay K <jay.krell at cornell.edu>:

> It is a big change.
[...]
> I actually think my earlier question might be the way to go to dramatically
> increase testing/coverage/confidence -- cm3 -test64 appends "_TEST64"
> to the build dir name (maybe maybe not the target name) and sets
> WORD_SIZE = "64" and BITSIZE(INTEGER) and ADDRESS to 64.
>
> I'd even consider something "simpler" where I actually create   
> another complete
> target, I386_NT_TEST64, including the various entries in   
> m3makefiles, Target.i3, etc.
>
> Maybe I can just try this locally with a one line change in Target.m3 though.
>
> I'll try that first.
That would be good.

[...]
> I have to accept releasing with 32bit LONGINT on NT386, due to the large
> overall change.
>
> Hopefully we arrange for more frequent releases somehow.

So you think we should not risk the merge and release without the
m3back changes now?

>> > - Should maybe improve build/packaging to get NT386-VC80.msi,
>>
>> I'd rather not touch the NT386 setup on our virtual machine;
>
> I probably won't leave a machine running 24/7.
>
> Can I just run the automation manually?

You can copy and run all the Hudson jobs manually. I'd suggest a
parametric setup for the differences though.

>    Recall Cygwin sshd didn't work adequately at the time.
>    Well, yes, I can always run whatever automation. Somewhat
>    it is a matter of principle of going through the more official   
> more automated
>    process vs. a less official, more error prone, less trusted   
> manual process.

> Installing additional toolsets on the VM really should work ok,   
> without breaking
> the existing. Can you try?

I cannot really do that without GUI access; and I'm afraid there are
currently no ressources to setup all those tools (Kay's busy with other
work).

> Maybe this: You create one .msi using the existing process. We'll make
> sure it is stamped "-VC90" or whatnot.
>
> I'll build a whole bunch of others, and they be available as "alternates",
> and we'll exclude the one corresponding to yours?
>
> You provide e.g. cm3-5.8-I386_NT-VC80.msi and I'll provide
>
>  cm3-5.8-I386_NT-VC20.msi
>  cm3-5.8-I386_NT-VC40.msi
>  cm3-5.8-I386_NT-VC41.msi
>  cm3-5.8-I386_NT-VC42.msi
>  cm3-5.8-I386_NT-VC50.msi
>  cm3-5.8-I386_NT-VC60.msi
>  cm3-5.8-I386_NT-VC70.msi
>  cm3-5.8-I386_NT-VC71.msi
>    <deliberate gap here>
>  cm3-5.8-I386_NT-VC90.msi

Do we really need all those? We would not only need the msi installers,
but the other packages would have to be compiled and linked with the
different tools, too, or they'd be incompatible, wouldn't they?

> I realize some of these are quite old and out of use, but it's   
> pretty simple to produce them all.

Of course you can contribute whatever installation archives you can create.
I'd rather have a defined set of target platforms and build procedures
for the official release though. So I think we should limit our
set of supported tool sets. What would you suggest that is most likely
to be really useful?

>  > > - I believe there is "new" divergence in m3front between head and
>  > Is this relevant for the release? Or can we just ignore it?
>
> I'd have to look, or Tony should say.
>
> To some extent it is tied with if we take NT386 64bit longint.

>  > We still need to add them to the WWW export/display, don't we?
>
> Definitely.

I'll do that.

Olaf
-- 
Olaf Wagner -- elego Software Solutions GmbH
                Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25 / Gebäude 12, 13355 Berlin, Germany
phone: +49 30 23 45 86 96  mobile: +49 177 2345 869  fax: +49 30 23 45 86 95
    http://www.elegosoft.com | Geschäftsführer: Olaf Wagner | Sitz: Berlin
Handelregister: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HRB 77719 | USt-IdNr: DE163214194