Hi Andrew, I don't recall all the details, but I probably backported all-at-once because it was a little easier for me to do so - it reflected the engineering that was actually done. I care more about the quality of the openjdk7 mercurial history. In this case the information *is* available to allow a future maintainer to do archaeological investigations. I agree it would have been a little cleaner to backport each change individually.
You also correctly notice that not all discussions end up on core-libs-dev. In part this is a cultural heritage - tradition is private, not public, peer review. I have been trying, and have been encouraging others, to make discussions more public, even when we might perceive them to be uninteresting to others. (What can be said about a backport, except whether it's worth doing, one might think.) Thanks for the culture change prodding. Martin On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 06:01, Andrew John Hughes<[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/4/29 Martin Buchholz <[email protected]>: >> Since writing this, I have learned, to my horror, that the >> behavior of the -C flag differs from the behavior in tar in that >> >> - -C is not sticky - it applies only to the one following argument >> >> - the path is relative to the JDK's current directory, not the >> previous -C directory. >> >> despite assurances from jar(1) >> >> -C dir >> Temporarily changes directories (cd dir) during execution of the >> jar command while processing the following inputfiles argument. >> Its operation is intended to be similar to the -C option of the >> UNIX tar utility. >> >> If you squint, you can see that it says "argument", not "arguments". >> >> Martin >> >> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 17:54, Martin Buchholz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I believe the better fix would be >>> to eviscerate the code that handles the "-C" flag and do it right, >> >> >>> Someone who cares about the Makefiles can also try to remove the >>> 16000 gratuitous -C flags that makes jar's life "jar hell". >>> >>> Martin >>> >> > > Martin, > > Thanks a lot for this patch. We've seen good speedups with it applied. > > The thread here reads very strangely; did a number of mails go to a > different mail list or only to private mail addresses? > There's also seems to be no mention of this being applied to OpenJDK6: > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/jdk/rev/b35f1e5075a4 > That changeset seems to have been merged together with several others; > was there a reason the changesets were not imported individually so as > to retain the history? > > Thanks, > -- > Andrew :-) > > Free Java Software Engineer > Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) > > Support Free Java! > Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK > http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath > http://openjdk.java.net > > PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) > Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 >
