[aarch64-port-dev ] RFR: Bulk integration of Shenandoah 2018-05-15

[Andrew Hughes]

On 13 June 2018 at 16:09, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 06/13/2018 04:02 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>
>> Clearly though, you want them for Shenandoah earlier than that. In
>> this case, add them to aarch64/jdk8u and then merge that into the
>> Shenandoah tree, rather than applying directly to Shenandoah. That
>> way, all three trees (the two aarch64 project ones and the
>> Shenandoah project one) have these fixes.
>
> Mmm, but that's when *I* start to get nervous about the divergence
> between what we ship as JDK 8 to everyone and OpenJDK 8 upstream.  Of
> course there's and inevitable tension, but we must be very careful not
> to break any production systems.
>
> --
> Andrew Haley
> Java Platform Lead Engineer
> Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
> EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671

Indeed, which is why I want them to have more scrutiny by going into
aarch64/jdk8u
on their own, rather than being part of a huge Shenandoah merge which only goes
into aarch64/jdk8u-shenandoah. I completely missed them in the Shenandoah merge
until they conflicted with us applying one of them already in our RPMs.

I also wouldn't suggest including patches that aren't already in OpenJDK 8
upstream. What we're talking about is fast-tracking patches that are of
high priority to us, rather than deviating from OpenJDK 8 long term.

The way we build our RPMs is that we use the aarch64/shenandoah-jdk8u HotSpot
on aarch64 & x86_64 and aarch64/jdk8u on all other architectures. If
patches are only
included in the former, we introduce the risk of seeing breakage on
some architectures,
but not others, which can create further confusion.
-- 
Andrew :)

Senior Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Web Site: http://fuseyism.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java
PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04  C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222