Request for creation of OSX integration repo forest
philip.race at oracle.com
Fri Oct 7 14:11:08 PDT 2011
A few comments ..
On 10/7/2011 1:36 PM, Paul Hohensee wrote:
> The ideas are:
> 1. In the interest of delivery speed, we want the OSX port to go into
> the 7
> update train and get forward-ported to 8 from there. At the moment,
> there's not much difference between 7u and 8, so for at least the initial
> work a forward port should be not very difficult.
That is understood but a lot of us still bear scars from the 6ux - > JDK
7 fix deficit
and the rule was made "jdk 8 first, back port to 7". So someone would have
to negotiate an exception to this.
> 2. The proposed forest would be a development integration forest
> and thus as stable at any given time as the component development
> teams make it. It's specifically a child of jdk7u, which the macos-port
> forest is not, and we don't want to necessarily start with the current
> content of the macos-port forest. The proposed forest isn't a "master"
> forest in the sense of jdk7u or for that matter jdk8. Think of it as
> like the jigsaw development forest.
In mercurial there isn't such a thing as a "child". They are all peers.
So what this seems to be, is more a "cleaned up" version of
the macosx-port forest, conforming to jcheck, etc. I hope we don't
lose much of the "useful" history in doing this ...
> 3. "Stable" should be defined by the component teams, but imo at
> a minimum it should be "pass the jcks on OSX and the complete
> set of current tests we're running on jdk7u for all other platforms".
> I.e., minimal stability for OSX and no regressions on other platforms.
> Once we've done that, we can think about discarding the proposed
> forest and pushing directly to jdk7u for further work.
Agree it must not cause regressions on other platforms.
But I suspect its going to take a while to get to all the tests passing ..
> 4. The current macos-port forest would be obsoleted.
> On 10/6/11 2:41 PM, Phil Race wrote:
>> I think there's a while to figure out what makes sense as the "stable
>> port" will take
>> a while to come about but someone needs to figure out what gets us
>> where we
>> want to be, so I wouldn't rush the implementation ..
>> Anyway, on openjdk we currently have
>> 1. macos-porting project
>> 2. 7u-dev
>> 3. jdk8
>> The goal has to be that #1 eventually becomes obsolete because the code
>> is stable and is in #2 and #3
>> If we replace #1 with a #4: 7u-dev-osx then the question is what does
>> that buy us ?
>> I can suppose it is intended to be more controlled than the
>> macosx-port but
>> less stable than the mainline 7u-dev, until sometime later. But if we
>> are to
>> release a 7uN port for all platforms then we would need to make sure
>> the fixes going into mainline also get merged into 7u-dev-osx .. and
>> some day
>> we need to obsolete that. I think that there's a gap opening up
>> already since
>> SFAIK, the macosx-port is based 7 GA.
>> Also we ought to consider when this all goes into 8. There it really
>> go straight into 8.
>> On 10/6/2011 9:37 AM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>> On 10/6/11 8:16 AM, Paul Hohensee wrote:
>>>> At JavaOne, Oracle announced the developer preview of the JDK7 Mac OSX
>>>> port. Apple is open-sourcing the port and Oracle plans to deliver
>>>> it in
>>>> a future JDK7 update release. Since the initial port will use the
>>>> JDK7 code
>>>> base, I'd like to propose the creation of a project repo forest for
>>>> the port
>>>> as a sub-project of the JDK7 update project. Once a stable port exists
>>>> in the OSX project repo forest, we can request permission to push
>>>> it to jdk7u.
>>> Thanks for this proposal, Paul.
>>> I posted a link to the Oracle JDK 7 Update release roadmap published
>>> at JavaOne
>>> and the corresponding press releases which give some more background
>>> on the plans wrt to the Mac OS X port to provide some more
>>> background for this
>>> request. 
>>> I'd like to open up this proposal for discussion until Monday.
>>> dalibor topic
More information about the jdk7u-dev