RFR (S) 8215724: Epsilon: ArrayStoreExceptionTest.java fails; missing arraycopy check

jesper.wilhelmsson at oracle.com jesper.wilhelmsson at oracle.com
Thu Jan 10 15:14:14 UTC 2019


> On 10 Jan 2019, at 15:00, Aleksey Shipilev <shade at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On 1/10/19 2:44 PM, Leo Korinth wrote:
>> Hi Aleksey and Jesper,
>> 
>> On 09/01/2019 16:09, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>> On 1/7/19 7:19 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>>> Bug:
>>>>    https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215724
>>>> 
>>>> Fix:
>>>>    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shade/8215724/webrev.01/
>>> 
>>> Ugh. I haven't noticed the bug has "Fix Version: 12", and I pushed the fix to jdk/jdk. Which created
>>> the "backport to 13". What should I do at this point? Should I also push the fix to jdk/jdk12 now?
>>> Would that cause duplicate bug ids when jdk/jdk12 -> jdk/jdk merge happens?
>> 
>> I believe that when you checked in 8215724 on 13, the system thought you fixed 12. In the process it
>> created a "backport" bug (8216425) to 13 (actually forward merge, bad naming), when the bug was
>> created it could see that it was already fixed in 13, and the 8216425 was directly resolved.
>> 
>> I hope my description is kind of right. I guess that if you apply the fix to 12, 8215724 will be
>> resolved as well. I will CC this mail to Jesper so that he will not be surprised when doing the
>> merge of bug fixes to 13.
> 
> AFAIU, if I push the same thing to jdk/jdk12, then jdk/jdk would end up with two changesets that
> mention 8215724, which is what we are trying to avoid. I know jcheck has the exception list that
> allows duplicate bug ids, but I'd desist from duplicating bugids deliberately. Maybe waiting for
> jdk-updates/jdk12u to appear and do the normal backport is better all around, and it is not as
> painful with the faster release cadence.
> 
> I think gatekeepers should decide what to do. Jesper?

Duplicate changes with the same bug id is no longer an issue. You can (and should) safely push the fix to 12 as well.
/Jesper

> 
>> Also, Could you arrange so that the fix is incorporated into 11.
> 
> I would, it is on our list to backport. But we need to figure out jdk12 first.
> 
> -Aleksey

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/attachments/20190110/cf4d916f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/attachments/20190110/cf4d916f/signature.asc>


More information about the hotspot-gc-dev mailing list