On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 7:38 PM Andrew John Hughes <gnu.and...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On 05/06/2019 02:35, Martin Buchholz wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:07 PM Andrew John Hughes <gnu.and...@redhat.com > > <mailto:gnu.and...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > > > I don't think this is the best approach. JDK-8146467 looks like a > pretty > > clean snapshot of the tests from not long after 8u GA. It doesn't > > include any *9Test.java files for a start. It would seem better to > start > > with backporting this, rather than taking a random snapshot of the > tests > > now, and hacking out all the later changes. > > > > > > I understand the virtues of backport hygiene, having done many backports > > myself, but here we're just going to disagree. > > I have a changeset for you, and it is a much better test corpus for > > jdk8u than the JDK-8146467 backport. > > > > > > Yes, it may be more tedious to then apply the follow-up test > changesets > > > > > > I'm not applying 36 changesets ! > > > > > > than to just copy files over initially, but using the original > > changesets has the advantage that it also may include fixes to the > > source code that go with the test (e.g. JDK-8185830) If you just > import > > the tests in bulk, you then have to hunt down and analyse each > failure, > > eventually ending up importing the source code changes from many of > > these changesets anyway. > > > > > > When I'm doing archaeology I look at the much more fine-grained changes > > in CVS, not hg! > > > > > > > > We also then have the administrative benefit of being able to query > the > > repository as to whether a fix is present or not, by searching for > its > > bug ID. > > > > > > When you backport an actual fix later, you will backport the change to > > src/ as usual and remove one of the DISABLED_JDK8_ prefixes. > > (Also, the actual jdk8 fix is already in CVS!) > > Are you planning to also submit the subsequent changes required here? > > My reticence here is over long-term maintainability. If you're planning > to maintain these tests in 8u, then I have no real problem with you > doing it in the way that seems best to you, even if it seems odd from my > perspective. > I have been maintaining this test suite for many years. But I don't plan to do much more work on jdk8u specifically. Nor do I foresee others likely to do non-trivial work on it. If a bug fix is backported from current jdk head, just the removal of a "DISABLED_JDK8_" is needed. Yes, in a sense my backport will be a fork that will "bitrot", but for jdk8u that's perfectly fine. Really! > However, if you just plan to submit this patch and leave the rest for > someone else to sort out, it's a different story. > If you find flaky failures, I will fix. (most likely a missing "DISABLED_JDK8_")
