Proposal to revise forest graph and integration practices for JDK 9

Yuri Nesterenko yuri.nesterenko at
Tue Dec 3 04:47:07 PST 2013

On 12/03/2013 04:52 AM, Lana Steuck wrote:
> On 12/02/2013 11:38 AM, mark.reinhold at wrote:
>> That's no doubt a good thing, but are we confident that we'll be able
>> to do such an integration every week, including any necessary manual
>> testing of client code? If not then it seems we need a separate client
>> forest that feeds into the dev forest after appropriate testing, just
>> like the HotSpot forests. - Mark
> It seems that it would depend on SQE resources. If SQE could perform
> manual client testing of the pre-integration build weekly, then we could
> do weekly integrations of jdk9-dev.
> - Lana
In fact, I think it may be even easier for SQE, here's a paradox.
We hope to have nightly builds established, and thus be prepared for PIT
very well; weekly routine is easier to plan in advance (and SQE is all
about planning); finally, we don't really do full-profile manual
testing  for PIT. It's all automated + some sanity checks +
cursory verification of actual fixes. This last task will be smaller
if do it weekly.


More information about the jdk9-dev mailing list