Adding Microbenchmarks to the JDK forest/trees (JEP-230)

Staffan Friberg staffan.friberg at
Thu Dec 4 17:51:33 UTC 2014

On 12/03/2014 02:58 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> On 2014-12-02 23:45, Christian Thalinger wrote:
>>> On Dec 2, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Jonathan Gibbons 
>>> <jonathan.gibbons at> wrote:
>>> Staffan,
>>> That seems to put it on the low end for reasonably being its own 
>>> repo, if you wanted that, at least, as indicated by the numbers.
>> Do we really want more repositories?
> As long as the number of repositories are around a dozen, one more or 
> less does not really matter. But our model will probably not scale 
> well with hundreds of repos (e.g. if someone would suggest that every 
> module should reside in a separate repo).
> My suggestion is that the microbenchmarks are put in the top-level 
> repo, if only for the reason that it seems fully possible to split 
> them out to a separate repo some time in the future if it grows too 
> much, but it seems much more unlikely that it will ever be moved back 
> into the top-level repo if we realized it was a stupid idea to put it 
> in a separate repo.
> /Magnus
I like this idea, and agree that shifting in the opposite direction is 
probably something that would be much more work than breaking it out if 
size becomes an issue further down the road.

When moving a directory to a new sub-repository, is there any concern 
about the diffs for that set of files still lingering in the top repo, 
or can those be moved as well?


More information about the build-dev mailing list