Proposal to revise forest graph and integration practices for JDK 9

mark.reinhold at mark.reinhold at
Thu Dec 5 09:09:53 PST 2013

2013/12/2 16:14 -0800, joe.darcy at
> On 12/02/2013 04:52 PM, 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.
> A few more thoughts on client library code.
> ...
> My strong preference is to start JDK 9 *without* a forest dedicated to 
> client libs changes and only add such a forest if that arrangement 
> proves unworkable in practice. Fewer forests means testing efforts can 
> be more focused.

Based on what Yuri and Artem said elsewhere in this thread, it sounds
like the manual pre-integration testing of client code is light enough
to support this approach, so let's go with it.

- Mark

More information about the jdk9-dev mailing list