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

Phil Race philip.race at oracle.com
Thu Dec 5 10:10:32 PST 2013

I don't think what Artem said is quite correct. SQE may not do manual testing But the integrator certainly does. The final steps of our integration process has always included certain manual tests (applets, SwingSet, Java2Demo) on all the platforms (Windows, Linux, Solaris and now Mac) on the final built bits. We will need to maintain that process.

Whilst hotspot and language changes may need to coordinate to be in the same place sooner rather than later there is no such need for client changes. So no benefit accrues from a shared forest there.

-phil.

On 12/5/2013 9:09 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:

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. - Mark

More information about the jdk9-dev mailing list