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

List:       openjdk-jdk6-dev
Subject:    Regression test results on latest pre-b19 -- repos tagged with b19 - b19 complete!
From:       joe.darcy () oracle ! com (Joe Darcy)
Date:       2010-04-29 17:41:44
Message-ID: 4BD9C4D8.2040502 () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 04/16/10 06:31 AM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> On 16 April 2010 03:34, Joseph D. Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com> wrote:
>   
>> Joseph D. Darcy wrote:
>>     
>>> Joe Darcy wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> On 12 April 2010 17:53, Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did a fresh build with all the latest changes and ran the regression
>>>>>> test
>>>>>> suite.  As before, all the HotSpot and langtools tests pass.  I think
>>>>>> these
>>>>>> results are good enough for b19.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>       
>>>>>> -Joe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Looks good to me.  I don't see any regressions (pass-->fail).
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> And there are lots more passing tests :-)
>>>>
>>>> Other than the Gervill fix under review, I don't have any other
>>>> outstanding changes to get into b19.  Assuming the Gervill fix goes back
>>>> soon and the test results are consistent, I'll label the repos post-fix as
>>>> b19.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> The tests results were consistent as expected.  I've tagged the repos with
>>> b19 and the usual source bundles, etc. should follow within a few days.
>>>
>>>       
>> Source bundles posted:
>> http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk6/promoted/b19/openjdk-6-src-b19-15_apr_2010.tar.gz
>>
>> OpenJDK 6 build 19 is done, on to build 20!
>>
>>     
>
> IcedTea6 now bumped to b19 too.
>
>   
>> As implied in some other recent messages to the list, I was considering
>> having OpenJDK 6 build 20 be dedicated to updating the copyrights in the
>> repositories from Sun -> Oracle.  That is not terribly compelling
>> technically, but it would make the administration of this change easier.
>>
>> In the next build open to technical changes, what changes are of interest?
>>
>>     
>
> hs17 would be my primary one, though as I suggested in another mail,
> it may make more sense to include this in the license updating.
>
> There's a fix I just posted to tl which needs backporting:
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/jdk/rev/c444651077d2
>
> I need to review what we have in IcedTea6 to see what else is needed.
>   

Yes, I agree undertaking such a review now is prudent.

I've verified with Brad the fix in question is appropriate for OpenJDK 6 
and I approve it going back now.

-Joe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/attachments/20100429/a4a0ee31/attachment.html 

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