9106:43cb25339b55
I go ahead and build everything and then run "java -version" and I see
openjdk version "1.8.0-20141202"
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0-20141202-HDS-174701)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.0-b70, mixed mode)
Q- Why am I seeing "build 25.0-b70&
hing and then run "java -version" and I see
openjdk version "1.8.0-20141202"
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0-20141202-HDS-174701)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.0-b70, mixed mode)
Q- Why am I seeing "build 25.0-b70" ? Does this "b70" has anything to do with
above "jdk8-b132" ?
Thanks
Medi
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Jonathan Gibbons
wrote:
>> Do we really want more repositories?
>>
>
> Conversely, do we really want bigger repositories? :-)
Yes, we want bigger repositories, not more repositories.
Put the benchmarks into the existing repo test directories.
Name them all FooBen
On 12/02/2014 02:45 PM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
>On Dec 2, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Jonathan Gibbons
wrote:
>
>Staffan,
>
>That seems to put it on the low end for reasonably being its own repo, if you
wanted that, at least, as indicated by the numbers.
Do we really want more repositories?
Con
> On Dec 2, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Jonathan Gibbons
> wrote:
>
> Staffan,
>
> That seems to put it on the low end for reasonably being its own repo, if you
> wanted that, at least, as indicated by the numbers.
Do we really want more repositories?
>
> Here's the file counts for where we are now
Staffan,
That seems to put it on the low end for reasonably being its own repo,
if you wanted that, at least, as indicated by the numbers.
Here's the file counts for where we are now
corba 1192
hotspot 4761
jaxp 2883
jaxws 3748
jdk 22776
langtools 6785
-- Jon
On 12/02/2014 02:27 PM, Staffan
Hi Jon,
As part of the initial set of benchmarks we hope to add as part of this
JEP I'm guessing it will be around 200-300 files. This would grow
overtime, but I believe we won't see tens of thousands of files, it is
more likely it will be something like a 1000 files.
//Staffan
On 12/02/201
Staffan,
I would also ask how many files are eventually likely to be involved.
If it's tens of files up to low hundreds, then a top level dir makes sense.
If it's tens of thousands of files, then a separate repo makes more sense.
-- Jon
On 12/02/2014 02:08 PM, Staffan Friberg wrote:
Hi Chri
Hi Chris,
Agree, there is no major reason this needs to be a new repository, as I
mentioned in the 3 options below it would work well without it. The main
thing I want to achieve is that the benchmarks are located on the top
level. The suite will contain benchmarks for all parts of the JDK so
Build folk,
The build has always generated warnings (sigh!) but right now, the
warnings look scarier than usual.
In particular, when the build terminates, I get a couple of screenfuls
of messages like this:
/w/jjg/work/jfm2.0/dev.8059977.sjfm/jdk/src/java.desktop/unix/native/libsplashscreen
Staffan,
Having all the benchmarks located in a single place makes sense to me, but this
doesn’t necessarily mean that they need their own repository, in the forest.
If I can build, run, and test ( usual development cycle ) without any
dependency on these benchmarks, or their infrastructure,
Hi,
(Adding the jdk9-dev list to increase the visibility of the discussion)
With the multiple sub-repository commit mechanism improved I believe
this might be less of an issue. JPRT can push JDK and HS changes at
together and the same functionality should be possible to use for this
as well.
Thanks Magnus, appreciate it!
Cheers,
Martijn
On 2 December 2014 at 15:42, Magnus Ihse Bursie <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2014-12-02 14:43, Martijn Verburg wrote:
>
>> That's a no for now then - in that case - do folks just want us firing any
>> updates we are aware of to this m
2014/12/1 4:08 -0800, [email protected]:
> Hopefully this is the right list for this discussion.
This change is going to affect many more people than just those
interested in the build. Suggest you float this on jdk9-dev.
- Mark
On 2014-12-02 14:43, Martijn Verburg wrote:
That's a no for now then - in that case - do folks just want us firing any
updates we are aware of to this mailing list?
Yes, please do.
I am aware that I have a backlog of already mailed additions. I'll try
to address them as soon as time permits. B
Hi Staffan,
An earlier issue was keeping tests in sync with the code under test, hence
the use of test directories within each repository.
I think a structure in which the benchmarks for some function and the
function
itself are in the same repository that is easier to understand and
maintain.
That's a no for now then - in that case - do folks just want us firing any
updates we are aware of to this mailing list?
Cheers,
Martijn
On 1 December 2014 at 19:02, Iris Clark wrote:
> Hi, Martijn.
>
> > Likewise - is it possible to get edit access?
>
> https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/Bu
17 matches
Mail list logo
