Builds and webrevs
shade at redhat.com
Fri Nov 2 13:43:39 UTC 2018
On 11/02/2018 02:34 PM, David Simms wrote:
>>> The "lworld" and "lw1" seem to be very far behind current jdk/jdk. Is this deliberate? If so, what
>>> would be the repository/revision to diff them against? If not so, are there plans to get them up to
> "lw1" is a dead release branch
Okay, good to know! Removed it from scheduled webrev.
> "lworld" - a pivot from lw1 to lw2 is underway, this is why the "lworld_stable" tag was added. Trail
> behind jdk/jdk is a little long now, but I don't want to disturb initial lw2. We will sync with jdk
> again once initial lw2 is going (soon, next week or two), and we can move the "lworld_stable"
> tag...so maybe wait until that happens ?
Meh. The goal for my CI is to build (and find failures) in bleeding edge versions, so I shall
continue building and webreving the "lworld" head. Once it catches up with jdk/jdk, webrev would
start to make more sense.
Our Shenandoah experience forced us to do pulls and merges early and often, as gigantic merges with
jdk/jdk prove to be very exhausting and error-prone if we allow upstream changes to accumulate. For
webrevs, not pulling recent jdk/jdk to "default" in valhalla/valhalla would be nice. This would
probably throw "nestmates" branch under the bus though, hm.
More information about the valhalla-dev