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

mark.reinhold at oracle.com mark.reinhold at oracle.com
Thu Dec 5 09:09:53 PST 2013

2013/12/2 16:14 -0800, joe.darcy at oracle.com:

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. A few more thoughts on client library code. ... 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.

Based on what Yuri and Artem said elsewhere in this thread, it sounds like the manual pre-integration testing of client code is light enough to support this approach, so let's go with it.

More information about the jdk9-dev mailing list