On 1/13/2011 9:12 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 11:50 Thu 13 Jan     , Coleen Phillimore wrote:
We're getting close to the stable hs20 branch.  I don't know how or when
it's imported to OpenJDK6 though so I shouldn't have tried to answer the
question.

I usually do the work to import new versions of HotSpot into OpenJDK6 and Joe
approves it, as with all OpenJDK6 patches.  I've never really understood why
we need to have both a stable branch AND an OpenJDK6 HotSpot tree, given they
end up being essentially the same, but that's the way it is.

We're about to make a new release of OpenJDK6 (b21) with HotSpot 19.  We've
obviously don't want to import an entire new HotSpot at this juncture, but will
probably do so for b22 once the HotSpot tree becomes available.

  From what you say, my understanding is that 6938627 causes a regression from 
previous
HotSpot behaviour and your patch, 7009828, fixes that regression.  As OpenJDK6 
has
6938627, would it not make sense to backport 7009828 as well to fix the 
regression?
If not, what am I missing here?  The patch doesn't seem hugely intrusive, and 
it reverts
back to using the previous expected behaviour of /tmp over java.io.tmpdir.

I didn't know all of this.
I finally realised this, hence the explanation :-)

Yes, I think you want to backport this
change.
Thanks.  I now just need the thumbs up from Joe as well.  Joe?

I've taken a look at the patch and I approve 7009828 to be backported to OpenJDK 6 b21.

Thanks,

-Joe

Reply via email to