On 30/07/2019 14:25, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> On 30/07/2019 09:48, Andrew Dinn wrote:
>> I agree that this is needed. I also understand why Andrew is loath to
>> see changes that are not upstream. However, in this case I don't think
>> we can avoid adding changes that cause a difference from upstream.
>
> I wouldn't say it's as extreme as loathing, but, if a big chunk of code
> is being added, I just would like to know its origins, and, if they are
> indeed new in this patch, give them the more through examination needed.
I am sure it's not that extreme! Loath != loathe. It means reluctant or
unwilling ;-). Apologies for the confusion.
A-and ... I fully understand why you /are/ unwilling. It' is entirely
the correct default.
> If I appear overly critical, put it down to a decade of doing such
> backports and having had to work out where such forks in the codebase
> come from, often on very tight deadlines. I'm trying to minimise
> potential later angst at the expense of a little more perspiration now.
Oh, I don't think you are over-critical or even over-cautious.
Over-experienced at having to unravel other people's conflations of
different concerns is definitely nearer the truth.
>> The upstream test make system is implemented very differently, as
>> Severin explained. He actually omitted mention of one important detail.
>> From jdk9 onwards it is organised in one tree rather than separate
>> subtrees. IN consequence the code Severin is replicating in the jdk8u
>> langtools/test make file does actually exist in upstream jdk11u but it
>> is in a /shared/ file (test/make/TestCommon.gmk). For what loosk liek a
>> very weird reason this shared file is not directly included in the
>> langtools/test make file (langtools seems to expect the test process to
>> pirate on the jdk test make process using a different path to the test
>> files). Anyway, it is clear that this sharing (or, indeed, pirating on
>> the jdk make process) is not an option in jdk8u because the make
>> processes run in separate trees. So, replicating the shared code seems
>> to be the only option.
>
> And, thanks, this is the answer I've been searching for. The langtools
> additions do seem to have been copied from the other versions, which, in
> turn, were moved to a shared location in 9 by JDK-8170629 [0] [1] [2]
> [3] [4]. That makes sense and I'm fine with that.
Ok, good. I'm glad to know I can shed some light on the matter as well
as shade ... err, I mean as well as make things more obscure ... ;-)
> For future reference, a lot of this back-and-forth could probably have
> been avoided if the process to arrive at such changes had been explained
> from the start.
Sure, although archaeology is by nature a somewhat grubby and confusing
science, especially while people are still digging. Anyway, we finally
arrived at a proper account which, I think, is all we need to allow this
change to be pushed.
regards,
Andrew Dinn
-----------
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd
Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill, Eric Shander
