On Sep 4 2013, at 04:00 , Alan Bateman wrote: > On 04/09/2013 00:23, Mike Duigou wrote: >> Hello all; >> >> Here is an updated webrev of just 8024014: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/JDK-8024014/0/webrev/ >> >> The controversial item here is the definition of the jdk_collections group >> which, since collections isn't aligned to a directory, is defined by a list >> of sub-directories. Since the list of files is quite static and would not >> have changed since Java 6 (except for jdk_stream) I think we should be able >> to tolerate the not-too-long list of files for the jdk_collections category. >> >> Other opinions? >> >> Mike >> > This is an improvement over the first proposal but I'm still not sure about > groups at this level. I'm not objecting, it's more the concern that this will > get complicated if personal play lists are added over time. I recall Jim Gish > was looking to add make targets at one point for String-only and Process-only > tests for example.
Understood. For now the sub-groups boundaries are the same as bug sub-component categories. I personally don't have any plans for the introducing groups which aren't aligned to component or sub-component boundaries. I think we are in agreement that adding such groups would be hard to manage. > In the context of test selection for profiles, David Holmes has been > proposing extending the selection to allow exclusion of groups on the command > line, something like: > > jtreg :jdk_util -:jdk_util_concurrent -:jdk_util_stream > > which would run the tests in the jdk_util group, minus the tests in the other > groups. If something like this happens then do you think the need for a > collections-only subset is reduced? Yes, though it does presume the existence of the sub-groups that can be "subtracted". Mike
