On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:48 AM, Fredrik Öhrström wrote:
> 2011/3/11 Kelly O'Hair
> in the repository. If there are frequent pushes going on, either from too
> much activity or too many developers,
> someone may experience a:
> hg push# fails because you need to do a pull "too many heads mess
On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:48 AM, Fredrik Öhrström wrote:
> I think it is much better to use the rebase extension to do
> hg pull --rebase
Repo history is simplified if individual developers (a) delay commits and
merges and (b) minimize private merges.
For my part, I use mq to manage my bug fixes i
2011/3/11 Kelly O'Hair
> in the repository. If there are frequent pushes going on, either from too
> much activity or too many developers,
> someone may experience a:
> hg push# fails because you need to do a pull "too many heads message"
> hg pull -u && hg merge && hg commit -m Merge
On Mar 11, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2011, at 2:11 AM, Steve Poole wrote:
>
>> Kelly - can you explain for us newbies why you have separate repositories?
>> I'm sure I can list any number of reasons but it would be good to get your
>> view. It may sound like a dumb
On Mar 11, 2011, at 2:11 AM, Steve Poole wrote:
> Kelly - can you explain for us newbies why you have separate repositories?
> I'm sure I can list any number of reasons but it would be good to get your
> view. It may sound like a dumb question but it does help in these sort of
> discussions
Having jdk/test and jdk/closed/test will make it harder[*] to run all
the jdk tests in a single run using jtreg directly.
-- Jon
[*] Brit-speak for "impossible".
On 03/08/2011 06:32 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
First, if we talk about the mercurial forests, it has nothing to do
with the Mercuri
On 09:14 Thu 10 Mar , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> On Mar 9, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Other ideas were considered:
> >> * Folding jaxp/jaxws into the root or jdk8/jdk repo
> >
> > Sounds good. jdk8/jdk would make more sense as jaxws depends on some
> > classe
On Mar 15, 2011, at 2:27 AM, Steve Poole wrote:
> Primarily then the objective of having multiple repositories is to improve
> developer productivity and component stability.
>
And also facilitate the ability to distribute some components to multiple
projects outside the jdk or multiple jdks.
Steve Poole said the following on 03/15/11 21:11:
On 15/03/11 10:44, David Holmes wrote:
Steve Poole said the following on 03/15/11 19:27:
I don't know how much cross-repo changes go on. It would seem that
if that is minimal then the next logical step would be to
remove the source for the rep
David Holmes wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this but working on different
repos we often do just use the "binaries" for other parts. For hotspot
for example my build process was the create the new libjvm.so file and
simply drop into a JDK. I never needed to build the JDK to do tha
On 15/03/11 10:44, David Holmes wrote:
Steve,
Steve Poole said the following on 03/15/11 19:27:
I don't know how much cross-repo changes go on. It would seem that
if that is minimal then the next logical step would be to
remove the source for the repos you're not working on and just have
the
Steve,
Steve Poole said the following on 03/15/11 19:27:
I don't know how much cross-repo changes go on. It would seem that if
that is minimal then the next logical step would be to
remove the source for the repos you're not working on and just have the
binaries instead.Do you see that as
On 11/03/11 18:07, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
On Mar 11, 2011, at 2:11 AM, Steve Poole wrote:
Kelly - can you explain for us newbies why you have separate repositories? I'm
sure I can list any number of reasons but it would be good to get your view.
It may sound like a dumb question but it does h
On Mar 11, 2011, at 1:51 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>>
>> I don't think that is the reason for the 1.4. But someone closer to this SA
>> project would need to clarify this.
>>
>> The reason was so that the SA could potentially operate on an older JDK as I
>> recall.
>> I su
I want to cast my vote for the current JDK7 layout. My effort with the source
is exclusively to port it to a proprietary OS. I tend to work off the bundled
zip files, not Hg, so I'm concerned the lines between the forests. The
advantage to me of having CORBA, JAXWS and JAXP be distinct, ident
On 03/11/2011 04:22 AM, Johan Walles wrote:
2011-03-10 20:17, John Coomes skrev:
Johan Walles (johan.wal...@oracle.com) wrote:
The problem for many developers with the all-in-one repository solution
is the time it takes to clone everything (5-6 minutes).
That's the best case, when I'm on the
2011-03-10 20:17, John Coomes skrev:
Johan Walles (johan.wal...@oracle.com) wrote:
The problem for many developers with the all-in-one repository solution
is the time it takes to clone everything (5-6 minutes).
That's the best case, when I'm on the corporate network, close to the
server. Over
On 09/03/11 02:32, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
First, if we talk about the mercurial forests, it has nothing to do
with the Mercurial Forest Extension.
What we really have is a set of nested repositories, sometimes called
our "forest" of repositories.
This email is just about the actual layout of th
Kelly O'Hair wrote:
I don't think that is the reason for the 1.4. But someone closer to
this SA project would need to clarify this.
The reason was so that the SA could potentially operate on an older
JDK as I recall.
I suspect 1.4 settings should have been changed to 1.5 in 1.6, and
maybe 1
2011-03-10 20:17, John Coomes skrev:
Johan Walles (johan.wal...@oracle.com) wrote:
2011-03-10 10:33, Anthony Petrov skrev:
Hi Andrew,
On 3/10/2011 3:48 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
[snip]
Hey, I'd just make it all one repository as they all interdepend on
each other
One huge "all-in-al
Andrew,
Just picking up on your SA comments and adding in the servicability folk
and bcc'ing the build folk ...
Dr Andrew John Hughes said the following on 03/11/11 10:46:
Well HotSpot is one thing I think works well as a separate repository.
It allows us to have a stable branch for OpenJDK6
On Mar 10, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> I've already run across one place where this is true. HotSpot builds
> the servicability agent with -source 1.4 -target 1.4. Why? Because
> of incompatibilies between its implementation and the com.sun.jdi
> interfaces which require Co
On 19:27 Wed 09 Mar , Phil Race wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> Whilst almost everything you wrote is something I agree with (like getting
> jcheck out there, not adding additional build tools/complexity), the one
> thing I quite like right now comes up here I'd like to keep is the
> separate repos.
> I
On Mar 10, 2011, at 3:10 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> Kelly O'Hair said the following on 03/11/11 09:00:
>> On Mar 10, 2011, at 2:50 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>>> Lana Steuck said the following on 03/11/11 07:03:
On 03/10/2011 08:46 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> Interesting point, we will need to
Kelly O'Hair said the following on 03/11/11 09:00:
On Mar 10, 2011, at 2:50 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Lana Steuck said the following on 03/11/11 07:03:
On 03/10/2011 08:46 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
Interesting point, we will need to decide which projects need jdk8 forests. I
imagine some will no
On Mar 10, 2011, at 2:50 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> Lana Steuck said the following on 03/11/11 07:03:
>> On 03/10/2011 08:46 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>>>
>>> Interesting point, we will need to decide which projects need jdk8 forests.
>>> I imagine some will not, and we may be
>>> doing a little t
Lana Steuck said the following on 03/11/11 07:03:
On 03/10/2011 08:46 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
Interesting point, we will need to decide which projects need jdk8
forests. I imagine some will not, and we may be
doing a little trimming down on the number of team forests.
Makes sense. There are
On 03/10/2011 08:46 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
Interesting point, we will need to decide which projects need jdk8
forests. I imagine some will not, and we may be
doing a little trimming down on the number of team forests.
Makes sense. There are some team forests (at least one that I know of)
t
On Mar 10, 2011, at 11:17 AM, John Coomes wrote:
> Johan Walles (johan.wal...@oracle.com) wrote:
>> 2011-03-10 10:33, Anthony Petrov skrev:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> On 3/10/2011 3:48 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>> [snip]
Hey, I'd just make it all one repository as they all interdepend on
Johan Walles (johan.wal...@oracle.com) wrote:
> 2011-03-10 10:33, Anthony Petrov skrev:
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > On 3/10/2011 3:48 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> [snip]
> >> Hey, I'd just make it all one repository as they all interdepend on
> >> each other
> >
> > One huge "all-in-all" repositor
On Mar 9, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>> Other ideas were considered:
>> * Folding jaxp/jaxws into the root or jdk8/jdk repo
>
> Sounds good. jdk8/jdk would make more sense as jaxws depends on some classes
> that are in the jdk
> tree (com.sun.net.httpserver) and we cou
On Mar 9, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> What I would ask is do the projects get this as well? Specifially, I'd like
> an icedtea/jdk8 at the same time please.
Interesting point, we will need to decide which projects need jdk8 forests. I
imagine some will not, and we may be
We could rename 'closed' to be 'oracle'. You could then have the oracle
build
be the common code plus the 'oracle' repo. Add an 'icedtea' repo and you
could have the icedtea build be the common code plus the 'icedtea'
repo. Etc.,
for other versions/vendors.
Paul
On 3/9/11 7:48 PM, Dr Andre
On 10/03/11 09:49, Johan Walles wrote:
The problem for many developers with the all-in-one repository
solution is the time it takes to clone everything (5-6 minutes).
I think another problem with the all-in-one repository solution is that
it increases chances for conflicting changes (i.e. when
2011-03-10 10:33, Anthony Petrov skrev:
Hi Andrew,
On 3/10/2011 3:48 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
[snip]
Hey, I'd just make it all one repository as they all interdepend on
each other
One huge "all-in-all" repository is great for integrators, porters, or
maintainers, but it isn't that co
Hi Andrew,
On 3/10/2011 3:48 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
* Separating out the client (awt/swing/etc) code from the jdk repo into a
separate repo
Why would we want to do this? IME, there are lots of interdependencies with
the other code and
this would make the build a nightmare.
No
Andrew,
Whilst almost everything you wrote is something I agree with (like getting
jcheck out there, not adding additional build tools/complexity), the one
thing I quite like right now comes up here I'd like to keep is the
separate repos.
Its not just hotspot, but I've been working on JDK for
On 18:32 Tue 08 Mar , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> First, if we talk about the mercurial forests, it has nothing to do with the
> Mercurial Forest Extension.
> What we really have is a set of nested repositories, sometimes called our
> "forest" of repositories.
>
> This email is just about the a
First, if we talk about the mercurial forests, it has nothing to do with the
Mercurial Forest Extension.
What we really have is a set of nested repositories, sometimes called our
"forest" of repositories.
This email is just about the actual layout of the repositories for jdk8.
The initial thin
39 matches
Mail list logo
