Proposal to revise forest graph and integration practices for JDK 9 (original) (raw)

Joe Darcy joe.darcy at oracle.com
Tue Dec 3 00:14:56 PST 2013

On 12/02/2013 04:52 PM, Lana Steuck wrote:

On 12/02/2013 11:38 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: That's no doubt a good thing, but are we confident that we'll be able to do such an integration every week, including any necessary manual testing of client code? If not then it seems we need a separate client forest that feeds into the dev forest after appropriate testing, just like the HotSpot forests. - Mark It seems that it would depend on SQE resources. If SQE could perform manual client testing of the pre-integration build weekly, then we could do weekly integrations of jdk9-dev. - Lana

A few more thoughts on client library code.

First, on a technological basis, client libraries are library code like the core libraries, living in the same repository and being built by the same makefile rules.

In terms of volume of changes, looking at the number of bug fixes per component in JDK 8, the client libs component has fewer than half the fixes of either core-libs or hotspot:

 client-libs fixes in JDK 8: 840
 core-libs fixes in JDK 8:   1983
 hotspot fixes in JDK 8: 1778

To me, both of these factors argue in favor of combining core libs and client libs fixes in a single forest.

Over time, throughout the JDK we should work to reduce the reliance on manual testing.

My strong preference is to start JDK 9 without a forest dedicated to client libs changes and only add such a forest if that arrangement proves unworkable in practice. Fewer forests means testing efforts can be more focused.

-Joe

More information about the jdk9-dev mailing list