[8u] RFR: cumulative patch required for C1 integration

[Andrey Petushkov]

Hi Andrew,

We are sorry for making such a trouble to you and the community. Of course we don’t want to harden your life or in any way impede the movement of Java. Unfortunately due how the circumstances had been set up we have started our work earlier than Aarch32 project has been announced, which resulted us in having a different baseline. 
And in fact this big change is exactly our effort to align the work on the project between all the parties. Once we have these changes merged we’ll rebaseline our code to the latest state of the openjdk repo. Starting that moment all our changesets will go to review without need for additional efforts.

By all reasonable means we’d like to avoid extra efforts on your side, the problem is to identify the approach. Before publishing this change we have spent quite a time discussing the optimal format but did not find any better way :( We are fully open to suggestions and can provide any information necessary to understand the nature of the changes. Yet we are pretty sure the list of those 158 changes with their review comments is not something you’d like to deal with..

Thank you for your patience and understanding,
Andrey

> On 17 Feb 2016, at 19:16, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On 02/17/2016 04:08 PM, Andrey Petushkov wrote:
>> 
>> Thank you for your response. Yes, sure, we understand the changes
>> are rather massive. Actually this patch is a reworked merge of 158
>> c1-related changesets we have made to the moment. So please try to
>> walk in our shoes - we have a different code baseline (we have taken
>> up from latest stable release at that moment, which was 8u60) and
>> almost every of these 158 patches touch both shared and c1-specific
>> files. So in order to prepare what you’re asking for we have to
>> rebeaseline all of those 158, but then you’ll end up in 158 review
>> requests on the alias. It’s definitely much easier to review each
>> single one of them but really do you want to take all of them one by
>> one?
> 
> Sure, I get that.
> 
> We are where we are, and I can't change history.  It's going to be
> extremely difficult to review such a patch in a meaningful way, but
> we'll try hard.
> 
> So, we'll just have to review this patch as it is.  It's a shame, but
> all I can do is hope that in the future we can work together in the
> open.
> 
> It is fantastically good to get Azul onboard.  Please don't
> misunderstand me: it'll be great to work together on this.
> 
> Andrew.