Proposal to revise forest graph and integration practices for JDK 9

Alan Bateman Alan.Bateman at
Tue Dec 3 02:56:32 PST 2013

On 03/12/2013 10:16, Artem Ananiev wrote:
> :
> (Speaking as a client libs engineer)
> I agree.
> From the technical perspective, I don't see any problems with having a 
> single forest for client and core libs teams. Client/core changesets 
> usually don't intersect, merge conflicts are rare and easy to resolve. 
> Less forests make the development and integration processes more 
> transparent, so if we can afford it (in terms of SQE resources, first 
> of all), let's do it.
Do you have an insight into what manual testing is currently required 
before going into master? I'm curious if this testing is strictly 
required. Also I'm wondering if there has been any attempt to automate 
this (from a distance I see the AWT Robot class and naively assume that 
the automated UI testing nut was cracked a long time ago).


More information about the jdk9-dev mailing list