Status on OpenJDK Build Infrastructure Project

[Erik Joelsson]

Also please see this mail that I just wrote

http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2012-December/007428.html

On 2012-12-21 11:10, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 20/12/2012 18:29, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>> :
>>
>> sjavac is not and has not been a hard requirement for the build-infra 
>> cutover,  sjavac status questions should be sent to
>> to the langtools group. The use of sjavac is a configuration option, 
>> defaulted to off right now.
>> Once it is working well, we are prepared to change our default 
>> configuration to use it, but we have to limit the complications
>> here before the cutover, and sjavac is a complication.
>> Developers can configure to use sjavac on their own, so we are not 
>> preventing it's use.
>>
>> This cutover is being done around RE's needs, and we are purposely 
>> not addressing all the developer issues before
>> the cutover. I know this is not ideal, but the pressure to get this 
>> in and made the default is tremendous.
>> We are the key log in a logjam of projects coming into M6.
>>
>> I apologize in advance to the existing developers doing partial 
>> builds, and I know how this will complicate their lives,
>> at least for a short time.
>> Certainly, for a short period of time, the old makefiles still exist, 
>> so we have time after M6 to work some of these issues out.
>>
>> I'm fully expecting horrible poems to be written about me on the 
>> walls of the bathroom stalls after this. :^(
>>
>> -kto
> For the record then I think that incremental build performance is much 
> higher priority than the performance of a full build. I say this 
> because full builds likely be relatively rare. Anyway my concerns 
> about the incremental build might be mute now as I see that the sjavac 
> work has just been funded and targeted to M6.
>
> -Alan.