We want to start using findbugs as some kind of optional part of the
build, so this was just step one. Not sure when we will hook it up.
I am of the opinion that we should make the build cleaner,
both in cleaning up the cc/javac/javadoc warnings, turning
on maximum warnings, and running findbugs.
Again, not sure when, not a minor undertaking, and it will be a global effort.
I suspect Jonathan and the langtools workspace/repository will likely take
the lead in this, one of the benefits of the split of sources means that
the langtools team can concentrate on their own sources, and making them
squeeeeeeeky clean. ;^)
-kto
Ted Neward wrote:
Related question: according to make sanity, it now looks for FindBugs, but I
don't find anything in the make README that describes why, or where to put
the FindBugs stuff.... When did this get added? B19 or 20? Is it going to
remain a part of the build going forward?
Ted Neward
Java, .NET, XML Services
Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
http://www.tedneward.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:build-dev-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted Neward
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 3:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source
drop
Exactly. It might be a nice way around the binary plugs for those who
don't
care about that stuff.
Ted Neward
Java, .NET, XML Services
Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
http://www.tedneward.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 12:21 PM
To: Ted Neward
Cc: 'Christian Thalinger'; [email protected];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK
source
drop
Good question... I'll explore that possibility, warn that no plugs
are
available but build as much as possible kind of thing, right?
-kto
Ted Neward wrote:
No promises heard, no expectations understood. :-)
I personally have a hard time following the argument that says that
"because
we put them into our source repository, we're asserting some kind
of
legal
license ownership" or something, but hey, I'm not a lawyer, either.
:-/
Here's a Really Dumb Question(TM): Is it possible (and then, is it
practical) to create a build that doesn't use any of the binary
plugs
stuff?
A stripped-down, JVM-and-core-classes-only kind of build that just
uses the
core stuff that's out in the Sun-blessed open source domain? (I
haven't
found that I cared about any of the binary plugs-related stuff yet,
so...)
Ted Neward
Java, .NET, XML Services
Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
http://www.tedneward.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:12 PM
To: Ted Neward
Cc: 'Christian Thalinger'; [email protected];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK
source
drop
I would love for these binary plugs to go away, and second best,
make
them trivially available, but we are in legal territory here.
I will bring up this issue and see if we can't do what you
suggest,
but I am not a lawyer, no promises.
They are a royal pain, no argument there.
-kto
Ted Neward wrote:
If they're going to change with every build release, then it's
even
MORE
important to make sure they're in some kind of source repository.
Otherwise,
the whole point of keeping it in a source-code control repository
(rollbacks, check out to a label, and so on) goes completely out
the
window
when I can't get the corresponding binary plugs.
I can't be the only one who grew up under the rule of source
control
that
states, "Everything necessary to create a build must be stored in
the
source
repository", can I?
Ted Neward
Java, .NET, XML Services
Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
http://www.tedneward.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Thalinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 2:03 AM
To: Ted Neward
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK
source
drop
On Sun, 2007-09-23 at 23:40 -0700, Ted Neward wrote:
If they can't rest in the same repository, then perhaps a
different
repository?
I'm just looking to be able to do a "svn up" (or its Mercurial
equivalent)
and know that I've got everything I need to build the OpenJDK;
it's
a
lot
more tedious to "svn up" then fetch the latest binary plugs
(particularly
since I'm betting they're not going to change as frequently as
the
source
does), and only then do a build.
That's wrong. Every source build has it's matching binary plug.
See:
http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/
- twisti
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release
Date:
9/20/2007 12:07 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date:
9/20/2007
12:07 PM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date:
9/20/2007 12:07 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date:
9/20/2007
12:07 PM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date:
9/20/2007 12:07 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date:
9/20/2007
12:07 PM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.28/1021 - Release Date:
9/21/2007 2:02 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: 9/27/2007
5:00 PM
