Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | [Web Doc] Inconsistencies with TPTP OS/JRE support statement. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | z_Archived | Reporter: | Paul Slauenwhite <paulslau> |
| Component: | TPTP | Assignee: | Paul Slauenwhite <paulslau> |
| Status: | CLOSED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | major | ||
| Priority: | P1 | CC: | apnan, ashishp, ewchan, guru.nagarajan, haggarty, jkubasta, jptoomey, jx_china, kiryl.kazakevich, mmings, popescu, samwai, sleeloy, sluiman, smith |
| Version: | unspecified | Keywords: | plan |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | jkubasta:
review?
(guru.nagarajan) paulslau: review+ jkubasta: review? (jptoomey) jkubasta: review? (smith) jkubasta: review? (mmings) paulslau: review? (jkubasta) |
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
|
Description
Paul Slauenwhite
Vista tolerance should be added for 4.2.2, 4.3.1 and 4.4 OS/JRE support statements. Eclipse 3.2.x support statement: http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/development/eclipse_project_plan_3_2.html#TargetOperatingEnvironments Cannot contain in 4.2.2 since lead committers and project leads have not provided the requested information. Below are the responses to a request to component leads for clarification on the inconsistencies in the TPTP JRE and OS Support Statement: Manual Test View: Paul Same as Agent Controller for Linux (x86) and Windows only. Native Logging: Cindy For native logging it supports same as the TPTP Agent Controller. Stand-alone GLA: Dave Stand-alone GLA is tested on the same OS's and JRE's as the Agent Controller. ARM: Ashish Remains unchanged. Outstanding: -New Technology Agent Controller -Agent Controller -Managed Agent Explorer and Monitoring Instrumentation -New Java Profiler Also show Java requirements for EMF, WTP, BIRT -Managed Agent Explorer and Monitoring Instrumentation -New Java Profiler * removed since no longer Tech Previews The Manual Tester information showed up in duplicate. Updated All links updated to show current versions Okay, I have revamped the whole document and think it needs to be reviewed now by fresh sets of eyes: http://www.eclipse.org/tptp/home/project_info/releaseinfo/4.4/support.html I am a bit puzzled by the TPTP OS support statement for 4.3.1 vs the 4.4 release plan. Samson/Kiryl/Alan: please review the AC and IAC lists Dave: please review GLA Cindy: please review Native Logging Paul: please review Manual Tester, API Recorder Framework (new addition), AGR Guru and Samson: Any updates to the Profiling section? New Java Profiler section has been removed Matt/Ashish: Managed Agent Explorer and Monitoring Information has been removed Eugene: Please review profile on server Sheldon: please review BIRT reports Since the IAC and the AC are essentially the same piece, do we need to (a) advertise the IAC and AC as two separate things, and twice in the document? (b) If we need to, then is the IAC still a tech preview? should it not be in the release section? IAC is tech preview on those platforms where eclipse is not supported. As AC is standalone, it is not subject to the same constraints. IAC is a separate install on those 64-bit systems and so is listed separately on the download page and in the JRE and OS support doc. (In reply to comment #9) Thanks Joanna for pulling this information together. A couple of comments: 1) Do we really need the JRE build IDs? I am wondering if the official release version for simplicity and consistency. 2) Should we as the OS patches (see Agent Controller section) in the TPTP workbench section for consistency? 3) For the Manual Test View section, can we have all the same OSes grouped together? Also, please remove the RedHat rows since we test on SLES. 4) In the Test Project, we test on SLES 10 and not SLES 9 with 2.6.5-7.97-default. SLES 10 is the latest release so we should all be probably testing with this version. 5) We should also include Build-to-Manage Toolkit and Code Coverage in the Technology Preview section. 6) Change Technical Preview to Technology Preview (two spots). 7) We should also include RCP LA and DB Editor in the Release section. 8) Can we use the same OS/JRE support statement for 4.3.1? (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #9) > Thanks Joanna for pulling this information together. > A couple of comments: > 1) Do we really need the JRE build IDs? I am wondering if the official release > version for simplicity and consistency. We have had to declare the specific build because we regularly have had regressions in the profiler from build to build and need to specifically say which we have tested and support (with out going crazy) > 5) We should also include Build-to-Manage Toolkit and Code Coverage in the > Technology Preview section. We know the code coverage preview is in use and in demand, however as you know the code base we use is not th eone we want to use going forward so this particular stream of code is being shut down due to lack of support and adoption. The code stream you have been investigating will come on line to replace this since code coverage is a basic part of testing function. (In reply to comment #11) > IAC is tech preview on those platforms where eclipse is not supported. As AC > is standalone, it is not subject to the same constraints. IAC is a separate > install on those 64-bit systems and so is listed separately on the download > page and in the JRE and OS support doc. I think a key point from Ashish is that the IAC and AC and old RAC no longer need to be exposed as separate things. Perhaps we have the IAC and a standalone install configuration of the same component for use in distributed cases. History took a different path, but that is in effect where we ended up from a user point of view. The only other part is the RAC which is really just a statement about our backward compatibility with older installs of the standalone component. IAC has been removed from Tech Preview section on download page and in JRE and OS support statement file. IES will be supported in 32-bit mode for Windows and Linux on EM64T (as secondary platform); IES will not support IPF. AC will GA on all of these platforms, IAC will not be provided on IPF - so AC is GA on em64t and ipf and IAC will GA on em64t as secondary platform with NO IAC tech preview on ipf Re comment 12 Point 1 - needed as per Harm's comment Point 2 - perhaps but these differ from published 4.4 plan Point 3 - OS grouping is handled by some formatting file somewhere so any objections to my addressing this point in TPTP. If I can find the file, I will make the change; RedHat rows removed for Manual Tester Point 4 - Change made Point 5 - Ashish, Matt is Build-to-Manage Toolkit now GA in 4.4? Point 6 - fixed; checked into Head Point 7 - still to be addressed Point 8 - for AC - no, don't think so. Not sure about the rest of it I need to add JRockit Point three should say in future (not in TPTP) but you can ignore since I found the file. I just need to figure out how it does the sort Joanna, This is a list of platforms where we test AC. 1) Red Hat Linux Advanced Server release 2.1AS, Intel x86 (32-bit), BEA JRockit(R) JDK 5.0 Update 6 (R26.3.0-32) 2) Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 3 (Taroon Update 4), IPF (64-bit), BEA JRockit(R) JDK 5.0 Update 4 (R26.0.0-188) 3) Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 3 (Taroon Update 4), EM64T (64-bit), BEA JRockit(R) JRE 5.0 Update 6 (R26.3.0-32) 4) Windows XP with SP2, Intel x86 (32-bit), Sun Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_11-b03) 5) Windows Vista, Intel x86 (32-bit), Sun Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_11-b03) 6) Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, IPF (64-bit), Sun Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.4.2_13-b06) 7) Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise x64 Edition with SP1, EM64T (64-bit), Sun Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_11-b03) (In reply to comment #18) > Point three should say in future (not in TPTP) but you can ignore since I found > the file. I just need to figure out how it does the sort > Thanks Joanna for your responses. I am fine with deferring this to post 4.4. I took a quick look and it appears as if the <xsl:sort select="//OS[@id=current()/@os_id]/name"/> element in \tptp\home\project_info\releaseinfo\support_summary.xsl is not working correctly. (In reply to comment #16) > Point 5 - Ashish, Matt is Build-to-Manage Toolkit now GA in 4.4? Yes, BTM is GA in TPTP 4.4. Please review and let me know if the file is complete and whether the tested environments are accurate. Should a BTM test section be added? I have a question about the build IDs that we list for the IBM 1.5 JREs throughout the support statement document. I agree that we should list build IDs, but these IDs seem wrong. For example, the IBM 1.5 JRE we list for the platform on Windows XP SP2 is from the end of 2005. J2RE 1.5.0 IBM Windows 32 build pwi32dev-20051222 v1.5.0 The Test project is testing with variants of the IBM 1.5.0 SR4 JRE, for example, build 2.3, J2RE 1.5.0 IBM J9 2.3 Windows XP x86-32 j9vmwi3223-20070201 The same concern should be noted for some of the Sun JREs that we list. For example, the 1.4.2 JRE that we list in the platform section for all builds is: v1.4.2.03-040401. This service release 3 build is over 3 years old, and the latest 1.4.2 release from Sun is at service release 14. I think we should reevaluate the contents of these tables, both to validate what we are testing with currently, and also to validate what we *should* be testing with. The latter should also take into consideration what JREs our consuming products want coverage of. For example, all the IBM consuming products will ship with the latest IBM 1.5 JRE, so we will not be helping ourselves or our consumers by testing with older IBM JRE builds (and thereby missing problems we could have found sooner.) (In reply to comment #22) > Please review and let me know if the file is complete and whether the tested > environments are accurate. Should a BTM test section be added? > Matt, I have added a section for the 'Build-to-Manage Toolkit for .NET', with the same content as the other Technology Previews (http://www.eclipse.org/tptp/home/project_info/releaseinfo/4.4/support.html#Technical_preview). That said, do we need a special section for the BtM GA code or does it safely fall into the TPTP workbench section: http://www.eclipse.org/tptp/home/project_info/releaseinfo/4.4/support.html#Workbench Alex/Eugene: Please provide content for the RCP Log Analyzer and RCP Symptom Catalog Editor. BtM GA code fits safely into the TPTP workbench section. As for BtM for .net we do need to add support platforms and .net compiler level supported. For BtM for .net Support OS Windows 2000 Windows Vista Windows 2003 Windows XP Supported .net Level .NET 2.0 To-do: 1) Update the http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops/R-3.2.2-200702121330//java-runtimes.html link once Europa has released. 2) Update download links for EMF (2.2.4 and 2.3) and Eclipse once Europa has released. (In reply to comment #26) > BtM GA code fits safely into the TPTP workbench section. As for BtM for .net > we do need to add support platforms and .net compiler level supported. > > For BtM for .net > > Support OS > Windows 2000 > Windows Vista > Windows 2003 > Windows XP > > Supported .net Level > .NET 2.0 > Done. Please review and mark the review flag to '+' when complete. (In reply to comment #9) Cindy, I removed the JRE column in the Supported operating systems table of the from the Native Logging section since it is not applicable. Please review. Added Windows Vista (IBM JRE 1.4.2 and 1.5) to the TPTP workbench support table since we test this run-time. Samson/Valentina: Can you comment on the Agent Controller test coverage on RedHat? Currently, we say we test the Agent Controller on RedHat Enterprise AS 2.1 with 2.4.9-e.49 but the workbench is tested on Red Hat Enterprise WS v4.0. Can you confirm? Paul, I can confirm that at least the following tests: Platform.Communication.New_Agent_Controller_Basic.Linux_IA32 Platform.Communication.New_Agent_Controller_Application_Console.Linux_IA32 Platform.Communication.New_Agent_Controller_File_Transfer.Linux_IA32 are performed by AC team on the RH Linux AS 2.1 (2.4.9-e.57smp). These tests do not requires the workbench. Thanks, Kiryl Valentina/Samson/Guru/others: Since the profiler requires specific versions of JREs, please confirm the specific versions of JREs listed in the JRE/OS support statement: http://www.eclipse.org/tptp/home/project_info/releaseinfo/4.4/support.html#Agent%20Controller Listed are the JRE versions used in executing the profiler test
bucket in the most recent 4.4 test pass (GA).
EM64T (Windows Server 2003)
JVMPI - Sun 1.4.2_14
JVMTI - Sun 1.5.0_06-b05
Windows XP - JVMPI - IBM 1.4.2 SR8
JVMTI - IBM 1.5.0 SR4
Windows Vista - JVMPI - Sun 1.4.2_14
JVMTI - IBM 1.5.0 SR5
Linux IA32 (SUSE SLES9 2.6.5-7.97-default)
JVMPI - IBM 1.4.2 SR8
JVMTI - IBM 1.5.0 SR5
Linux IPF - JVMTI - Sun 1.5.0_04-b05
Linux EM64T - JVMTI - Sun 1.5.0_04-b05
(In reply to comment #25) > Alex/Eugene: Please provide content for the RCP Log Analyzer and RCP Symptom > Catalog Editor. > See http://www.eclipse.org/tptp/home/project_info/releaseinfo/4.4/support.html#RCP%20Log%20Analyzer for the RCP Log Analyzer and http://www.eclipse.org/tptp/home/project_info/releaseinfo/4.4/support.html#RCP%20Symptom%20Catalog%20Editor for RCP Symptom Catalog Editor additions. Please edit as necessary. (In reply to comment #27) > To-do: > > 1) Update the > http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops/R-3.2.2-200702121330//java-runtimes.html > link once Europa has released. > > 2) Update download links for EMF (2.2.4 and 2.3) and Eclipse once Europa has > released. > Done (including adding Europa links to all dependencies). (In reply to comment #18) > Point three should say in future (not in TPTP) but you can ignore since I found > the file. I just need to figure out how it does the sort > Fixed. It required a secondary sort on os.level.version. (In reply to comment #19) > Joanna, > > This is a list of platforms where we test AC. > > 1) Red Hat Linux Advanced Server release 2.1AS, Intel x86 (32-bit), BEA > JRockit(R) JDK 5.0 Update 6 (R26.3.0-32) > 2) Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 3 (Taroon Update 4), IPF (64-bit), BEA > JRockit(R) JDK 5.0 Update 4 (R26.0.0-188) > 3) Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 3 (Taroon Update 4), EM64T (64-bit), BEA > JRockit(R) JRE 5.0 Update 6 (R26.3.0-32) > 4) Windows XP with SP2, Intel x86 (32-bit), Sun Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, > Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_11-b03) > 5) Windows Vista, Intel x86 (32-bit), Sun Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, > Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_11-b03) > 6) Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, IPF (64-bit), Sun Java(TM) 2 Runtime > Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.4.2_13-b06) > 7) Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise x64 Edition with SP1, EM64T (64-bit), Sun > Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_11-b03) > Done. (In reply to comment #34) > Listed are the JRE versions used in executing the profiler test > bucket in the most recent 4.4 test pass (GA). > > EM64T (Windows Server 2003) > JVMPI - Sun 1.4.2_14 > JVMTI - Sun 1.5.0_06-b05 > > Windows XP - JVMPI - IBM 1.4.2 SR8 > JVMTI - IBM 1.5.0 SR4 > > Windows Vista - JVMPI - Sun 1.4.2_14 > JVMTI - IBM 1.5.0 SR5 > > Linux IA32 (SUSE SLES9 2.6.5-7.97-default) > JVMPI - IBM 1.4.2 SR8 > JVMTI - IBM 1.5.0 SR5 > > Linux IPF - JVMTI - Sun 1.5.0_04-b05 > > Linux EM64T - JVMTI - Sun 1.5.0_04-b05 > Thanks Alan. What are the Linux flavors for the following: Linux IPF - JVMTI - Sun 1.5.0_04-b05 Linux EM64T - JVMTI - Sun 1.5.0_04-b05 (In reply to comment #23) > I have a question about the build IDs that we list for the IBM 1.5 JREs > throughout the support statement document. I agree that we should list build > IDs, but these IDs seem wrong. For example, the IBM 1.5 JRE we list for the > platform on Windows XP SP2 is from the end of 2005. J2RE 1.5.0 IBM Windows 32 > build pwi32dev-20051222 v1.5.0 > > The Test project is testing with variants of the IBM 1.5.0 SR4 JRE, for > example, build 2.3, J2RE 1.5.0 IBM J9 2.3 Windows XP x86-32 j9vmwi3223-20070201 > > The same concern should be noted for some of the Sun JREs that we list. For > example, the 1.4.2 JRE that we list in the platform section for all builds is: > v1.4.2.03-040401. This service release 3 build is over 3 years old, and the > latest 1.4.2 release from Sun is at service release 14. > > I think we should reevaluate the contents of these tables, both to validate > what we are testing with currently, and also to validate what we *should* be > testing with. The latter should also take into consideration what JREs our > consuming products want coverage of. For example, all the IBM consuming > products will ship with the latest IBM 1.5 JRE, so we will not be helping > ourselves or our consumers by testing with older IBM JRE builds (and thereby > missing problems we could have found sooner.) > We appear to have many inconsistencies in our JRE levels for testing and support. We need all Teams to be testing at the same update/SR level for consistency. As part of the review process, I will be request the project leads/PMC agree on what those update/SR levels are and ensure they are followed during subsequent test passes. For the cases where we test at different update/SR levels, I have used the latest. Finally, I have spoken to the profiler Team and they no longer require specific builds of a certain update/SR level so I have removed the build dates. (In reply to comment #39) > What are the Linux flavors for the following: > Linux IPF - JVMTI - Sun 1.5.0_04-b05 > Linux EM64T - JVMTI - Sun 1.5.0_04-b05 Linux IPF: OS version: RHEL AS release 4 (Nahant Update 4) Kernel: 2.6.9-42.0.8.EL Linux EM64T: Fedora Core 6, 2.6.18-1.2798.fc6 (In reply to comment #41) > (In reply to comment #39) > > What are the Linux flavors for the following: > > Linux IPF - JVMTI - Sun 1.5.0_04-b05 > > Linux EM64T - JVMTI - Sun 1.5.0_04-b05 > > Linux IPF: > OS version: RHEL AS release 4 (Nahant Update 4) Kernel: 2.6.9-42.0.8.EL > > Linux EM64T: > Fedora Core 6, 2.6.18-1.2798.fc6 > Done. Thanks. Guru/Joe/Dave/Matt/Joanna: The final updates are complete. Please review with special attention for: -JRE update/SR levels. -OSes no longer tested. An exit criteria for this review is agreement on what the update/SR levels are and ensure they are followed during subsequent test passes. http://www.eclipse.org/tptp/home/project_info/releaseinfo/4.4/support.html (In reply to comment #43) Please reopen if changes are required. I updated the Standalone GLA support table in support44.xml to correspond to the test coverage. |