Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source drop

[Ted Neward]

If they're going to change with every build release, then it's even MORE
important to make sure they're in some kind of source repository. Otherwise,
the whole point of keeping it in a source-code control repository
(rollbacks, check out to a label, and so on) goes completely out the window
when I can't get the corresponding binary plugs.

I can't be the only one who grew up under the rule of source control that
states, "Everything necessary to create a build must be stored in the source
repository", can I?

Ted Neward
Java, .NET, XML Services
Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
http://www.tedneward.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Thalinger [mailto:twisti at complang.tuwien.ac.at]
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 2:03 AM
> To: Ted Neward
> Cc: Tim.Bell at Sun.COM; build-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: RE: Makefile patch needed when building the b20 OpenJDK source
> drop
> 
> On Sun, 2007-09-23 at 23:40 -0700, Ted Neward wrote:
> > If they can't rest in the same repository, then perhaps a different
> > repository?
> >
> > I'm just looking to be able to do a "svn up" (or its Mercurial
> equivalent)
> > and know that I've got everything I need to build the OpenJDK; it's a
> lot
> > more tedious to "svn up" then fetch the latest binary plugs
> (particularly
> > since I'm betting they're not going to change as frequently as the
> source
> > does), and only then do a build.
> 
> That's wrong.  Every source build has it's matching binary plug.  See:
> 
> http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/
> 
> - twisti
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date:
> 9/20/2007 12:07 PM
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: 9/20/2007
12:07 PM