Changeset: 1657b854c956
Author:mchung
Date: 2011-03-09 23:59 -0800
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/build/jdk/rev/1657b854c956
7026228: Remove make/modules and make/common/Modules.gmk
Reviewed-by: alanb, ohair
- make/common/Modules.gmk
- make/java/nio/mxbean/Makefile
-
Mandy Chung wrote:
I removed it and also updated make/nio/Makefile:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/7025631/webrev.02/
Thanks and as part of that you'll need to re-add BufferPoolMXBean to
FILES_java.gmk (but since this will be moved via 7024172, it means it
will only be temporary).
I think it is important that a recent stock mercurial install
can check out the full openjdk with a single clone
command.
I.e. you should not have to install special extensions just
to get the source code.
There are several ways this can be solved. But before
we dive into discussions on the
2011-03-10 10:33, Anthony Petrov skrev:
Hi Andrew,
On 3/10/2011 3:48 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
[snip]
Hey, I'd just make it all one repository as they all interdepend on
each other
One huge all-in-all repository is great for integrators, porters, or
maintainers, but it isn't that
On 10/03/11 09:49, Johan Walles wrote:
The problem for many developers with the all-in-one repository
solution is the time it takes to clone everything (5-6 minutes).
I think another problem with the all-in-one repository solution is that
it increases chances for conflicting changes (i.e. when
Fredrik Öhrström wrote:
I think it is important that a recent stock mercurial install
can check out the full openjdk with a single clone
command.
I.e. you should not have to install special extensions just
to get the source code.
I think this is a reasonable goal as it's probably confusing to
On 3/10/2011 3:13 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
Fredrik Öhrström wrote:
I think it is important that a recent stock mercurial install
can check out the full openjdk with a single clone
command.
I.e. you should not have to install special extensions just
to get the source code.
I think this is a
We could rename 'closed' to be 'oracle'. You could then have the oracle
build
be the common code plus the 'oracle' repo. Add an 'icedtea' repo and you
could have the icedtea build be the common code plus the 'icedtea'
repo. Etc.,
for other versions/vendors.
Paul
On 3/9/11 7:48 PM, Dr
On Mar 9, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
What I would ask is do the projects get this as well? Specifially, I'd like
an icedtea/jdk8 at the same time please.
Interesting point, we will need to decide which projects need jdk8 forests. I
imagine some will not, and we may be
On 03/10/11 08:01, Alan Bateman wrote:
Mandy Chung wrote:
Oops... how can I miss that!! I'll file a new CR and push this. For
7024172, it will be at least 1-2 weeks since we need to submit for
CCC approval.
Here is the patch.
diff --git a/make/java/nio/FILES_java.gmk
On Mar 9, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
Other ideas were considered:
* Folding jaxp/jaxws into the root or jdk8/jdk repo
Sounds good. jdk8/jdk would make more sense as jaxws depends on some classes
that are in the jdk
tree (com.sun.net.httpserver) and we could then
On Mar 10, 2011, at 11:17 AM, John Coomes wrote:
Johan Walles (johan.wal...@oracle.com) wrote:
2011-03-10 10:33, Anthony Petrov skrev:
Hi Andrew,
On 3/10/2011 3:48 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
[snip]
Hey, I'd just make it all one repository as they all interdepend on
each other
Fredrik Öhrström said the following on 03/10/11 20:22:
I think it is important that a recent stock mercurial install
can check out the full openjdk with a single clone
command.
I.e. you should not have to install special extensions just
to get the source code.
That's a bit of a leading/loaded
Changeset: ba12732b1453
Author:ohair
Date: 2011-03-10 13:22 -0800
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/build/jaxws/rev/ba12732b1453
7025412: make381 issues with quotes in jdk/make/docs/Makefile and other places
Reviewed-by: mchung
! make/Makefile
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)
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
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 Mar 10, 2011, at 3:10 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Kelly O'Hair said the following on 03/11/11 09:00:
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
On 19:27 Wed 09 Mar , Phil Race wrote:
Andrew,
Whilst almost everything you wrote is something I agree with (like getting
jcheck out there, not adding additional build tools/complexity), the one
thing I quite like right now comes up here I'd like to keep is the
separate repos.
Its not
On 06:40 Fri 11 Mar , David Holmes wrote:
Fredrik Öhrström said the following on 03/10/11 20:22:
I think it is important that a recent stock mercurial install
can check out the full openjdk with a single clone
command.
I.e. you should not have to install special extensions just
On 17:35 Thu 10 Mar , David Holmes wrote:
Dr Andrew John Hughes said the following on 03/10/11 10:26:
On 22:09 Wed 09 Mar , David Holmes wrote:
My original reply does not seem to have made it to build-dev.
I've updated the webrev again to accommodate openjdk builds that set
Dr Andrew John Hughes said the following on 03/11/11 10:57:
On 06:40 Fri 11 Mar , David Holmes wrote:
Stepping up a level, an initial download of openjdk need not involve
using mercurial at all. You can simply download a stable snapshot as a
tar file;
This makes much more sense as a
Dr Andrew John Hughes said the following on 03/11/11 11:02:
On 17:35 Thu 10 Mar , David Holmes wrote:
Sorry, this was just a preliminary RFR so I didn't set up the webrev
versioning.
My issue was more a personal distaste for webrevs than anything you did
wrong. I just find it much
On 3/10/2011 5:14 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Dr Andrew John Hughes said the following on 03/11/11 10:57:
On 06:40 Fri 11 Mar , David Holmes wrote:
Stepping up a level, an initial download of openjdk need not involve
using mercurial at all. You can simply download a stable snapshot as a
tar
On Mar 10, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
I've already run across one place where this is true. HotSpot builds
the servicability agent with -source 1.4 -target 1.4. Why? Because
of incompatibilies between its implementation and the com.sun.jdi
interfaces which require
Andrew,
Just picking up on your SA comments and adding in the servicability folk
and bcc'ing the build folk ...
Dr Andrew John Hughes said the following on 03/11/11 10:46:
Well HotSpot is one thing I think works well as a separate repository.
It allows us to have a stable branch for OpenJDK6
FYI I accidentally nuked all my webrevs on cr.openjdk.jav.net.
I'll send out new review requests and webrevs next week.
David
David Holmes said the following on 03/11/11 11:50:
Dr Andrew John Hughes said the following on 03/11/11 11:02:
On 17:35 Thu 10 Mar , David Holmes wrote:
Sorry,
27 matches
Mail list logo
