[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-2d-dev
Subject:    Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] Should changes to client libraries be pushed to jdk9/dev instead of jdk9/client
From:       Joseph Darcy <joe.darcy () oracle ! com>
Date:       2014-01-31 23:46:07
Message-ID: 52EC35BF.60505 () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


On 1/31/2014 2:05 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 31/01/2014 09:08, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>> On 26.01.2014 13:30, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>> As a side point, client changes have been going into jdk9/client 
>>> rather than jdk9/dev so I just wonder if there might be changes 
>>> backed up in jdk9/client that might cause issues when merged.
>> It will be really good to push all fixes related to client to the 
>> jdk9/client. The first merge between dev and client already broke the 
>> build:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8033326
> I've changed the subject line as I think this topic deserves its own 
> discussion.
>
> On this specific merge issue then I guess part of the issue is that 
> jdk9/client had not been sync'ed up in a long time. The changes to 
> SecurityManager (which involved changes to both core and client 
> libraries) were pushed to jdk9/dev on December 18. Also if the build 
> breakage (due to the merge issue) wasn't detected until it was pushed 
> to jdk9/client then something else is wrong. When doing a huge sync up 
> (and it looks like 300+ changes were being pulled from jdk9/dev in 
> this case) then I would think that the merge should involve doing at 
> least sanity builds on all platforms before pushing to jdk9/client.
>
> In any case, I think the discussion item here is where should changes 
> to client libraries be pushed. The discussion on jdk9-dev about this 
> issue wasn't very clear, I think it came down to whether any manual 
> testing would be required before integrating into master. At least for 
> jdk9/dev then my understanding is that there is a desire to integrate 
> into master every week, maybe more often and eventually (longer term) 
> continuously. I'm sure Joe will have suggestions on this issue.
>

Discussions are on going as to which forest client libraries fixes 
should go into, the client forest (where closed-source deployment 
changes happen to be going) or to the dev forest where all the other 
libraries work is going; FWIW, I favor the latter.

In any case, for all the forests which will be integrating into dev, 
including the client and hotspot forests, the maintainers of those 
forests are responsible for regularly pulling down changes from dev and 
merging them in. In my estimation, unless there is a reason for 
temporary isolation, the frequency of syncing with dev should be closer 
to daily than weekly or monthly. The dev forest was open for business on 
Dec. 13, 2013, and fixes started going into it that day. From my reading 
of the JDK 9 master (http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/), the tag 
for jdk9-b01 was added about three weeks ago. So if the first sync from 
dev into client has only done in the last day or two, that would seem to 
be tardy to me.

The goal for dev is to have integrations into master no less than 
weekly, but I'd like us to transition to having smaller and more 
frequent integrations. We are laying the foundational work, cleaning up 
intermittent test failures, etc. to allow that to happen.

Cheers,

-Joe
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]