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 trimming down on the number of team forests. >> Makes sense. There are some team forests (at least one that I know of) that >> are not being used, so we can look into removing those and maybe combining >> those team forests which have more interdependencies into one forest >> (provided that the team members agree). > > I've never been a fan of the "all projects are complete forests". It just > increases the conceptual complexity of the repositories and the workload of > keeping all the forests sync'ed up. It should be easy to add additional > repositories to a project as the need arises, without requiring all > repositories. >
But all too often, regressions in one part of the forest only manifest themselves when building the entire forest. So it is the responsibility of the Developer and Integrator to insure the entire forest builds and works prior to integrations into the 'master' (jdk7/jdk7) forest. Integrators are required to sync up with master, test build, and integrate the entire forest, not partials. By having that full forest available for the team, you can at least be sure that anyone on the team doing full forest builds is dealing with the same sources. Developers can choose to only use partials, that is certainly always possible. -kto
