[14] RFR(S/T) : 8235866 : bump jtreg requiredVersion to 4.2b16

Igor Ignatyev igor.ignatyev at oracle.com
Fri Dec 13 06:46:02 UTC 2019

> On Dec 12, 2019, at 10:21 PM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi Igor,
> On 13/12/2019 3:19 pm, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev//8235866/webrev.00
>>> 5 lines changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 5 mod
>> Hi all,
>> could you please review this small patch which updates TEST.ROOT in all test suites to require jtreg4.2b16?
>> 8230067[1] updated profiles to use jtreg4.2b16, but didn't update TEST.ROOT files. this patch forces all users to have jtreg4.2b16, so there will be no difference in how tests are executed locally and in automated testing infrastructures.
>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev//8235866/webrev.00
> So you changed everyone to b14 under 8219417 but then jaxp was reverted back to b13 under
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8219705
> just a few weeks later. Does that mean jaxp has an issue with later jtreg builds? Or was that a mistake?
I don't see why 8219705 can require to change requiredVersion, nor do I see it being discussed in RFR (https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2019-March/058923.html <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2019-March/058923.html>), so I assume it's just unrelated local changes which got integrated. but just to be safe, 

were there any reasons why you needed to switch jtreg's requiredVersion back to 4.2b13 in jaxp? are there any reasons which prevent jaxp from switching to jtreg4.2b16 now?

> Otherwise changes seem fine to me.
> When was b16 released?

the tag was added by Jon on Dec 03 2019. so I believe there was enough time for usual suspects to build/adjust, and I'm aware about at least one publicly available place where people can get the latest build of jtreg, if they have problems w/ building it themselves.

-- Igor
> Thanks,
> David
>> JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8235866
>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8230067
>> Thanks,
>> -- Igor

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list