On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 22:56:15 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <i...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> A lot (but not all) of the data in make/data is tied to a specific module. 
>> For instance, the publicsuffixlist is used by java.base, and fontconfig by 
>> java.desktop. (A few directories, like mainmanifest, is *actually* used by 
>> make for the whole build.) 
>> 
>> These data files should move to the module they belong to. The are, after 
>> all, "source code" for that module that is "compiler" into resulting 
>> deliverables, for that module. (But the "source code" language is not Java 
>> or C, but typically a highly domain specific language or data format, and 
>> the "compilation" is, often, a specialized transformation.) 
>> 
>> This misplacement of the data directory is most visible at code review time. 
>> When such data is changed, most of the time build-dev (or the new build 
>> label) is involved, even though this has nothing to do with the build. While 
>> this is annoying, a worse problem is if the actual team that needs to review 
>> the patch (i.e., the team owning the module) is missed in the review.
>> 
>> ### Modules reviewed
>> 
>> - [x] java.base
>> - [ ] java.desktop
>> - [x] jdk.compiler
>> - [x] java.se
>
> Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request with a new target base due to 
> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes 
> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains eight additional 
> commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Update comment refering to "make" dir
>  - Move new symbols to jdk.compiler
>  - Merge branch 'master' into shuffle-data
>  - Move macosxicons from share to macosx
>  - Move to share/data, and move jdwp.spec to java.se
>  - Update references in test
>  - Step 2: Update references
>  - First stage, move actual data files

Marked as reviewed by prr (Reviewer).

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1611

Reply via email to