Hi Joe,
Okay - no problem. Just looking for opportunities to streamline the process.
Cheers,
David
On 26/06/2018 9:42 AM, joe darcy wrote:
Hi David,
On 6/25/2018 4:13 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Joe,
On 26/06/2018 4:10 AM, joe darcy wrote:
Hello,
With the JDK 11 and 12 split fast approaching [1], it is time to work
on the various start of release update tasks for JDK 12. Those tasks
are being tracked under the umbrella bug JDK-8205615: "Start of
release updates for JDK 12".
This thread is to review the build-related portions of the work
including JDK-8205621: "Increment JDK version for JDK 12." Current
webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8205615.4/
make/autoconf/version-numbers
If we're going to ensure we bump the version and classfile version
together then we should be able to restore:
DEFAULT_VERSION_CLASSFILE_MAJOR=56 # "`$EXPR $DEFAULT_VERSION_FEATURE
+ 44`"
to just:
DEFAULT_VERSION_CLASSFILE_MAJOR="`$EXPR $DEFAULT_VERSION_FEATURE + 44`"
Hmm. I don't know if I want to implicitly mandate we bump the class file
version and JDK version at the same time.
Possibly we could also set:
DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_BOOT_VERSIONS
to use DEFAULT_VERSION_FEATURE, DEFAULT_VERSION_FEATURE-1
DEFAULT_VERSION_FEATURE-2 ? If that is our boot JDK policy. Or will we
drop 10 at some point in the process?
We will drop 10 at some point. Per the last round of conversations, the
boot JDK policy is official builds are done with the most recently GA'ed
release, which right now is 10, but we want to allow the subsequent
releases too for bootstrap builds, etc.
---
make/common/SetupJavaCompilers.gmk
Again if we're bumping everything en-masse can we use
DEFAULT_VERSION_FEATURE instead of hard-wiring 12?
Same reaction; I think it is acceptable if we explicitly opt-into the
new source/target values for the build.
If we end up successfully doing the coordinated update for 12 followed
by the same feat for 13, I'd be more inclined to change these files to
avoid needing to do explicit updates ;-)
And should these be using --release instead of -source + -target?
That is a reasonable suggestion and I inquired about that myself with
Erik off-list. There may have been a hiccup using that in the past and
it is worth looking into again. However, I'd prefer to handle that
investigation separately to avoid delaying the start-of-12 changes from
getting back.
Thanks,
-Joe
---
Thanks,
David
A handful of test failures still need to be addressed, so there will
be some minor adjustments to the aggregate set of changes before they
are pushed.
Cheers,
-Joe
[1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk-dev/2018-June/001462.html
