[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [tptp-platform-dev] Fw: Defect approval

I guess I wonder about the low risk.
The bug was introduced even though it was thoroughly tested. It in theory fixed a bug, which must now have returned, yet was important enough to fix in the first place.

I am not around to ask the questions, and don't intent to disrupt the flow, but it seems this is the kind of detail that this template approval request form should contain.

Thanks for your time.
Harm Sluiman,
IBM DE, MI, corp cloud initiatives
phone:905-413-4032   fax: 4920  cell: 1-416-407-9715
Admin : Queenie Lam qlam@xxxxxxxxxx  Tie: 313-5864 1-905-413-5864

From: Kathy Chan/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
To: tptp-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx, tptp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 03/04/2009 03:13 PM
Subject: [tptp-platform-dev] Fw: Defect approval
Sent by: tptp-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

+1 for platform and PMC.

Kathy Chan
IBM Canada Lab


----- Forwarded by Kathy Chan/Toronto/IBM on 03/04/2009 03:09 PM -----
Paul Klicnik/Toronto/IBM

03/04/2009 03:04 PM

Kathy Chan/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Defect approval

I am requesting approval to include the following critical defect in TPTP

JVM Panic on JVMPI profile of simple class

1. Explain why you believe this is a stop-ship defect. How does the defect manifest itself, and how will users of TPTP / consuming products be affected if the defect is not fixed?
Profiling with the JVMPI agent in enabled mode causes a segmentation error in the JVM. All profiling in enabled mode will fail.

2. Is there a work-around? If so, why do you believe the work-around is insufficient?

3. Is this a regression or API breakage? Explain.
Regression of the patch provided for 257440

4. Does this require new API?

5. Who performed the code review?
Jonathan West

6. Is there a test case attached to the bugzilla record?

7. What is the risk associated with this fix?
Low - the fix involved simply revertied the applied patch for 257440 thus putting the piAgent/probekit code back into it's original state (which has presumably already been tested extensively)

8. Is this fix related to any standards that TPTP adheres to? If so, who has validated that the fix continues to adhere to the standard?
tptp-platform-dev mailing list