Is the "skip boot cycle" trick still needed?

[Kumar Srinivasan]

also it is being used by the jdk tl/etc integrator to build PIT bundles. 
I agree
with the others it has been very useful in the past.

Kumar

> I agree with Jon.  SKIP_BOOT_CYCLE=false has been a useful and handy 
> test case (building JDK with the newly built JDK) to catch issues 
> early on.    Such functionality makes it easy and convenient to do the 
> skip boot cycle build via JPRT or our automated nightly builds.  FWIW 
> - skip boot cycle build has been especially useful for Jigsaw as there 
> are significant changes to the layout as well as the runtime and we do 
> that in our nightly builds.
>
> Mandy
>
> On 9/10/2012 8:09 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>> Using SKIP_BOOT_CYCLE=false has often flushed out bugs, and I would 
>> be concerned about its removal.
>>
>> Is it really that hard to provide the same functionality in the new 
>> build system?  Surely, it should just be a matter of a couple of 
>> recursive makes at the top-level, the first into an "interim" build 
>> dir and the second using the result of the first as its ALT_BOOTDIR.
>>
>> -- Jon
>>
>>
>> On 09/10/2012 04:43 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>> In the old system, one can set the oddly named SKIP_BOOT_CYCLE to 
>>> false (which, internally, sets the slightly more clearly named 
>>> DO_BOOT_CYCLE=true). This causes the product to build twice, the 
>>> second time using the first build result as the boot jdk.
>>>
>>> This has been used, as I understand it, as a "poor mans integration 
>>> test" -- if the build output could perform the feat of compiling the 
>>> JDK, then it can't be that broken.
>>>
>>> This kind of behaviour is not implemented in the new build system, 
>>> and I propose that it should not be. The cost for implementing this 
>>> is that all build system for all builds will be more complicated, 
>>> but the gains are more unclear. To me, this is just a test, and it's 
>>> a bit odd to have that as part of the build system. I also believe 
>>> are now far better tests using jtreg, and if they are lacking -- 
>>> then the tests should be improved, not the build system changed.
>>>
>>> Is there anyone who would be protesting if the SKIP_BOOT_CYCLE 
>>> functionality would be dropped in the new build system?
>>>
>>> /Magnus
>>