[Vm-dev] Re: [squeak-dev] Intent to upgrade box4 VM from VMr.2776 to VM.r2987

[Eliot Miranda]

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:

> I was operating under the assumption that CC was referring to a Spur VM.
>  I mistakenly assumed the higher number automatically meant Spur, but
> you've made me realize it's just a new Cog VM, not Spur.  Yes, Cog has been
> quite stable for some time and you know the details and the risks.  We know
> your ethic and we trust you.
>

except that you're right :-(.  I've found that my recent changes to
eliminate implementation of division with shift when the divisor is a power
of two breaks the LargeIntegers plugin because division is the only way
that Slang supports signed bitShift: (which is a bug).  Phhh...

So I'll be taking 3021 down PDQ.  3018 should be OK.



>
> Having said that, I would still understand and support any box-admin who
> wanted some testing first.  If something is already _proven_ working in
> production, not crashing, and we're not really having any immediate
> production impetus to upgrade it, then this almost amounts to "testing in
> production".  No benefit, but a small chance for a problem.  There's plenty
> of time and opportunity to shake them out in test environments first.
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Didn't Levente ask us to use stable VM's for production services?
>>>
>>
>> Given that 3018 has nothing radically new but contains bug fixes IMO it
>> is stable.  Even the SPur VM is more stable than the one that preceeds it.
>>  What extra testing has 2776 had to make it more or less stable than 2987
>> or 3021?  2987 and subsequent all run the standard test suite with
>> equivalent results.  I don't make arbitrary changes to the Cog VMs (Spur is
>> obviously evolving much faster, but again is getting more, not less
>> stable).  You need to specify a criterion by which a VM is judged stable,
>> not merely go by age, which is, at least on average, inversely correlated
>> with stability, older VMs containing more bugs, if you want to argue
>> against using newer VMs.  I don't put newer VMs out for amusement.  I put
>> them out because they're better (faster, fix bugs, etc).
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Chris Cunnington <brasspen at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I intend to upgrade the VM on box4 VM.r2776 (Aug. 2013) to VM.r2987
>>>>> (June 2014). The intention here is to refine the install/removal process. I
>>>>> just did this on my Debian Wheezy box, so it seems pretty straightforward.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3018 is the latest and greatest.  Please use it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Installing:
>>>>>
>>>>> - get a Cog binary from mirandabanda.org
>>>>> - use Ken's cogdeb.zip to make a deb
>>>>> - install with dpkg  (i.e. dpkg -i cogvm_2776-1_i386.deb)
>>>>> - execute "man squeak" to see if it's loaded
>>>>>
>>>>> Removing:
>>>>>
>>>>> - check the package name with dpkg-query -l
>>>>> - see it's actually called "coglinux" as opposed to cogvm or squeak
>>>>> - dpkg -r coglinux
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, as I said, I just did this on my server and is seemed to work OK.
>>>>> I plan to upgrade the VM from last year's model (2776) to this year's
>>>>> (2987). If there's anything people with more LInux experience could add to
>>>>> this process, I'd be happy to hear it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> best,
>>>> Eliot
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> best,
>> Eliot
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
best,
Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20140630/4e3db34d/attachment.htm