Hi,
On 12/04/2014 10:23 PM, joe darcy wrote:
Hello,
On 12/4/2014 4:34 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Staffan,
On 2/12/2014 10:08 AM, Staffan Friberg wrote:
Hi,
Hopefully this is the right list for this discussion.
As part of adding Microbenchmarks to the OpenJDK source tree, I'm
trying
to
On 12/05/2014 11:46 AM, Staffan Friberg wrote:
Hi,
On 12/04/2014 10:23 PM, joe darcy wrote:
Hello,
On 12/4/2014 4:34 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Staffan,
On 2/12/2014 10:08 AM, Staffan Friberg wrote:
Hi,
Hopefully this is the right list for this discussion.
As part of adding
Hi Jon,
On 12/05/2014 01:52 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 12/05/2014 11:46 AM, Staffan Friberg wrote:
Hi,
On 12/04/2014 10:23 PM, joe darcy wrote:
Hello,
On 12/4/2014 4:34 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Staffan,
On 2/12/2014 10:08 AM, Staffan Friberg wrote:
Hi,
Hopefully this is the right
On 12/03/2014 02:58 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2014-12-02 23:45, Christian Thalinger wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Jonathan Gibbons
jonathan.gibb...@oracle.com wrote:
Staffan,
That seems to put it on the low end for reasonably being its own
repo, if you wanted that, at least, as
2014/12/4 9:51 -0800, staffan.frib...@oracle.com:
On 12/03/2014 02:58 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
...
My suggestion is that the microbenchmarks are put in the top-level
repo, if only for the reason that it seems fully possible to split
them out to a separate repo some time in the future
Hi Staffan,
On 2/12/2014 10:08 AM, Staffan Friberg wrote:
Hi,
Hopefully this is the right list for this discussion.
As part of adding Microbenchmarks to the OpenJDK source tree, I'm trying
to understand how we best would add the benchmark sources to the
existing OpenJDK tree structure.
Is
On 2014-12-02 23:45, Christian Thalinger wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Jonathan Gibbons jonathan.gibb...@oracle.com
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
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.
2014/12/1 4:08 -0800, staffan.frib...@oracle.com:
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
On Dec 2, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Jonathan Gibbons jonathan.gibb...@oracle.com
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
On 12/02/2014 02:45 PM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Jonathan Gibbonsjonathan.gibb...@oracle.com
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
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Jonathan Gibbons
jonathan.gibb...@oracle.com 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
Hi,
Hopefully this is the right list for this discussion.
As part of adding Microbenchmarks to the OpenJDK source tree, I'm trying
to understand how we best would add the benchmark sources to the
existing OpenJDK tree structure.
Since the microbenchmark suite will cover all parts of the
18 matches
Mail list logo
