Proposal to revise forest graph and integration practices for JDK 9

Artem Ananiev artem.ananiev at
Tue Dec 3 04:38:30 PST 2013

Hi, Alan,

On 12/3/2013 2:56 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> 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).

Currently, pre-integration testing is just running automated tests + 
verification of certain fixes. No manual testing. Manual tests are 
sometimes run against promoted builds, but SQE team already does weekly 
testing, so if client libs are integrated weekly instead of bi-weekly, 
nothing will change for them.

AWT Robot is a great tool, but it has its limitations. Most of the 
troubles are caused by window managers, which are not under Robot control.



> -Alan.

More information about the jdk9-dev mailing list