That bears investigation ... next week,
-- Jon
On 11/23/2016 07:39 PM, Philip Race wrote:
We have a PIT (pre-integration-testing process) but if
that these clashes are presented only as an FYI and not
an actual failure then SQE might not notice it. It may
even get swallowed and not forwarded for human inspection
by some layered tool on top.
I don't actually know .. I am just speculating.
-phil.
On 11/23/16, 6:50 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Phil Race <philip.r...@oracle.com
<mailto:philip.r...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Hi,
So your real complaint isn't the failure itself, but that jtreg
bothers
to check directories you aren't even running tests from, and
that is a time tax whether such clashes exist or not ?
Seems a reasonable point ... if I'm running a single Image I/O test
jtreg still finds the java/awt clash and that can't be "free".
That was _one_ of my complaints!
I'm also unhappy that jdk9/dev got poisoned by jdk9/client. Having
subforests is supposed to prevent that sort of breakage via proper
release engineering.
I'm _not_ unhappy about the mistake itself - it's a classic software
engineering trap we all fall into eventually if we do software long
enough.
