From martinrb at google.com Mon Jun 1 01:24:49 2009 From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 18:24:49 -0700 Subject: Early access builds In-Reply-To: <4A22F481.1040203@sun.com> References: <1243799542.32104.89.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <4A22F481.1040203@sun.com> Message-ID: <1ccfd1c10905311824u5649cfbds91f649c350cc3f49@mail.gmail.com> If Sun provides a place with enough disk space and write access, I offer to make available the openjdk6 and openjdk7 binaries I have built for linux-{i586,amd64}{,-fastdebug}. 100GB, give or take an order of magnitude. Built for Ubuntu dapper, but has a good chance of working on Red Hat systems. Martin On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 14:20, Kelly O'Hair wrote: > > Mark Wielaard wrote: > >> Hi Kelly, >> > [snip] > >> Sidenote (and the reason I send the original email): It certainly made >> me pause and decide not to use the nio2 early access builds to try and >> figure out what was wrong with the nio2 tests included in IcedTea or >> give any feedback. Damn, I thought, if this is how it has to be, then no >> cooperation! Luckily, Alan Bateman stands way above all this little >> bickering, so he contacted me, we went over all the failures I saw in my >> build, and he personally explained each and every one away. Go Alan! >> > > Yes, Go Alan. ;^) > > [snip] > > I understand. > > >> So, I think that what we really need is rules for OpenJDK projects that >> want to publish Early Access build artifacts. IMHO if they do, they >> should do that in accordance to the rules that everybody needs to >> follow, which are spelled out at http://openjdk.java.net/legal/ >> That is the only fair thing to do. >> > > I have no disagreement here. I think we can fix this. Probably about time > anyway. > > And to be clear, in my opinion, any 'open' build published should be one > built without the binary plugs, I would very much like for them to die, > be buried, and be forgotten. > > Effectively what I'm thinking is a kind of cleanroom build of an openjdk > forest, using Fedora 9 X86 32bit, and OpenSolaris X86 32bit to start. > I'll create a simple self-extracting tarball installer (no rpm/deb/ips > packages), > and publish them in a public openjdk area. > No testing to start, but adding testing with published results could > be done by just about anyone. > If I do this right, we can in theory point at any openjdk project forest > and provide the same build service for any project. > > Granted, I think anyone in the community could probably do the same > thing, and I'm happy to step aside for someone else to do it, whatever, > but let's get something done here. > > Assuming I'm not fired or sent to Iraq for sticking my neck out on this, > does this sound like a reasonable start? > > -kto > From Jonathan.Gibbons at Sun.COM Mon Jun 1 01:38:24 2009 From: Jonathan.Gibbons at Sun.COM (Jonathan Gibbons) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 18:38:24 -0700 Subject: Early access builds In-Reply-To: <1ccfd1c10905311824u5649cfbds91f649c350cc3f49@mail.gmail.com> References: <1243799542.32104.89.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <4A22F481.1040203@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10905311824u5649cfbds91f649c350cc3f49@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <092EEE1A-7DF9-408B-BDDB-DF8BD59E28B3@sun.com> The cr.openjdk.java.net space is good, but it is user-oriented (file space is addressed by username), and the overall name implies it is for code reviews (only?). It would be good if Sun would provide more project-oriented file space, such that each project gets an amount of filespace, for any/all project related info -- which could include code reviews, builds, test- reports, and so on. -- Jon On May 31, 2009, at 6:24 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote: > If Sun provides a place with enough disk space and write access, > I offer to make available the openjdk6 and openjdk7 binaries I have > built > for linux-{i586,amd64}{,-fastdebug}. 100GB, give or take an order of > magnitude. > Built for Ubuntu dapper, but has a good chance of working on Red Hat > systems. > > Martin > > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 14:20, Kelly O'Hair > wrote: > >> >> Mark Wielaard wrote: >> >>> Hi Kelly, >>> >> [snip] >> >>> Sidenote (and the reason I send the original email): It certainly >>> made >>> me pause and decide not to use the nio2 early access builds to try >>> and >>> figure out what was wrong with the nio2 tests included in IcedTea or >>> give any feedback. Damn, I thought, if this is how it has to be, >>> then no >>> cooperation! Luckily, Alan Bateman stands way above all this little >>> bickering, so he contacted me, we went over all the failures I saw >>> in my >>> build, and he personally explained each and every one away. Go Alan! >>> >> >> Yes, Go Alan. ;^) >> >> [snip] >> >> I understand. >> >> >>> So, I think that what we really need is rules for OpenJDK projects >>> that >>> want to publish Early Access build artifacts. IMHO if they do, they >>> should do that in accordance to the rules that everybody needs to >>> follow, which are spelled out at http://openjdk.java.net/legal/ >>> That is the only fair thing to do. >>> >> >> I have no disagreement here. I think we can fix this. Probably >> about time >> anyway. >> >> And to be clear, in my opinion, any 'open' build published should >> be one >> built without the binary plugs, I would very much like for them to >> die, >> be buried, and be forgotten. >> >> Effectively what I'm thinking is a kind of cleanroom build of an >> openjdk >> forest, using Fedora 9 X86 32bit, and OpenSolaris X86 32bit to start. >> I'll create a simple self-extracting tarball installer (no rpm/deb/ >> ips >> packages), >> and publish them in a public openjdk area. >> No testing to start, but adding testing with published results could >> be done by just about anyone. >> If I do this right, we can in theory point at any openjdk project >> forest >> and provide the same build service for any project. >> >> Granted, I think anyone in the community could probably do the same >> thing, and I'm happy to step aside for someone else to do it, >> whatever, >> but let's get something done here. >> >> Assuming I'm not fired or sent to Iraq for sticking my neck out on >> this, >> does this sound like a reasonable start? >> >> -kto >> From mark at klomp.org Mon Jun 1 03:55:34 2009 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 05:55:34 +0200 Subject: Early access builds In-Reply-To: <4A22F481.1040203@sun.com> References: <1243799542.32104.89.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <4A22F481.1040203@sun.com> Message-ID: <1243828534.32104.92.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 14:20 -0700, Kelly O'Hair wrote: > I have no disagreement here. I think we can fix this. Probably about time > anyway. > > And to be clear, in my opinion, any 'open' build published should be one > built without the binary plugs, I would very much like for them to die, > be buried, and be forgotten. :) ! > Effectively what I'm thinking is a kind of cleanroom build of an openjdk > forest, using Fedora 9 X86 32bit, and OpenSolaris X86 32bit to start. > I'll create a simple self-extracting tarball installer (no rpm/deb/ips packages), > and publish them in a public openjdk area. > No testing to start, but adding testing with published results could > be done by just about anyone. > If I do this right, we can in theory point at any openjdk project forest > and provide the same build service for any project. > > Granted, I think anyone in the community could probably do the same > thing, and I'm happy to step aside for someone else to do it, whatever, > but let's get something done here. > > Assuming I'm not fired or sent to Iraq for sticking my neck out on this, > does this sound like a reasonable start? That sounds like a wonderful start! Thanks, Mark From Tim.Bell at Sun.COM Mon Jun 1 05:03:38 2009 From: Tim.Bell at Sun.COM (Tim Bell) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 22:03:38 -0700 Subject: Early access builds In-Reply-To: <092EEE1A-7DF9-408B-BDDB-DF8BD59E28B3@sun.com> References: <1243799542.32104.89.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <4A22F481.1040203@sun.com> <1ccfd1c10905311824u5649cfbds91f649c350cc3f49@mail.gmail.com> <092EEE1A-7DF9-408B-BDDB-DF8BD59E28B3@sun.com> Message-ID: <4A23612A.80402@sun.com> Jonathan Gibbons wrote: > The cr.openjdk.java.net space is good, but it is user-oriented (file > space is addressed by username), and the overall name implies it is for > code reviews (only?). Webrev and code reviews was the primary intent when we got it set up. As folks have discovered, it can be used to share anything related to OpenJDK - build logs, documents, html, odd bits of code, and yes, even JDK builds. Martin Buchholz wrote: > If Sun provides a place with enough disk space and write access, > I offer to make available the openjdk6 and openjdk7 binaries I have built > for linux-{i586,amd64}{,-fastdebug}. 100GB, give or take an order of > magnitude. > Built for Ubuntu dapper, but has a good chance of working on Red Hat > systems. You could use cr.ojn for that today. The current ZFS pool is 237G with 3.3G in use. Hopefully after JavaOne we can get back to this topic. If we should happen to meet up at the show this week I'd be glad to talk to you about it. Tim From aph at redhat.com Mon Jun 1 08:25:46 2009 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 09:25:46 +0100 Subject: Validate OpenJDK In-Reply-To: <3a71add70905311114w5b2edfcbo70d6bc35fc45f56a@mail.gmail.com> References: <3a71add70905311114w5b2edfcbo70d6bc35fc45f56a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A23908A.30009@redhat.com> Frans Thamura wrote: > with the news about Sun put propietary build in OpenJDK > > i have several question, is the current OpenJDK good product to be use > as Java platform > > anyone validate that the current Sun Java SDK is 100% with OpenJDK, Red Hat has run the Java Technical Compatibility tests on Fedora and Red Hat Enterprise Linux packages. > i think we need a team that promote the "difference" > > but with propietary build, i see a Game here.. > > i think we must start to create our own SDK :) but how to make sure > people dont use the "propietary" Why not? They're free to do so if they wish. Andrew. From Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM Mon Jun 1 10:46:20 2009 From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM (Dalibor Topic) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 03:46:20 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK Forum: Core Libraries Round Table In-Reply-To: <4A201662.1090002@sun.com> References: <4A1D759A.5020504@sun.com> <4A201662.1090002@sun.com> Message-ID: <4A23B17C.9030601@sun.com> Dalibor Topic wrote: > Dalibor Topic wrote: >> Hi core libraries developers, >> >> I met Alan Bateman last evening, and we thought that we >> should have another OpenJDK Core Libraries Forum this week, >> so (drumroll) it's time again on Friday, for the >> >> OpenJDK Forum >> >> Date/Time: Friday May 29th, 8 AM Pacific, 1600 GMT, 5 PM Germany >> >> Subject: Core libraries round table > > Hi everyone, > > a recording of the call in the Ogg Vorbis format is available at > http://mediacast.sun.com/users/robilad/media/openjdk-forum-3.ogg/details > For the Ogg-player-less would-be-listeners, there is an mp3 version generated from the ogg file at http://mediacast.sun.com/users/robilad/media/openjdk-forum-3.mp3/details cheers, dalibor topic -- ******************************************************************* Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Mon Jun 1 15:45:55 2009 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 16:45:55 +0100 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <4A22D27E.5060003@sun.com> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <17c6771e0905291410h57de3b86g92c9148dc92de6d7@mail.gmail.com> <1243711898.3752.23.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <44ca3ad70905301605l13ec534bk4ed2ad7d3dd8b9af@mail.gmail.com> <58ADC029-B94C-4B08-915A-E9E935F2F245@pobox.com> <4A21BF35.4000207@Sun.COM> <4A22C483.9090500@sun.com> <39401705-2ECE-4DAD-9BD1-FB8BBAC5AD90@pobox.com> <4A22D27E.5060003@sun.com> Message-ID: <17c6771e0906010845y6355e811u9a6f3c772931404@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/31 Kelly O'Hair : > > > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >> >> On May 31, 2009, at 1:55 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>>> >>>> On May 30, 2009, at 7:20 PM, Dmitri Trembovetski wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi David, >>>>>> On May 30, 2009, at 7:05 PM, David Herron wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mark, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please recall that JDK != OpenJDK though for values of n >= 7 >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> difference is very small. ?The JDK7 builds have some proprietary bits >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why? ?For heaven's sake... why? >>>>> >>>>> Because the corresponding open source parts aren't good enough yet and >>>>> we don't have enough resources to make them on par with the proprietary bits >>>>> although this is what we want in the long run. >>>>> >>>>> Specific parts that I know of are color management, AA shape rasterizer >>>>> and font rasterizer. >>>> >>>> It's been how many years that you've had to re-write? >>> >>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ^^^^^^ >>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? we have >>> >>> Seems like I am reading too much "them vs. us" in these emails. >> >> Oh, come on. ?I don't know where to begin here. >> >> 1) ?I'm not a "you" :) ?I'm really happy OpenJDK exists, but as one of the >> founder's of Apache Harmony, I think it's good that there are many >> free/open/libre Java communities. ? I'm very interested in floss Java, which >> is why I pay attention to this community. >> > > I am also really happy all the open source projects exist, and I really > like working on them. But I keep getting this feeling of doing battle. > I don't want to do battle, I want to make progress on something. > I don't think any of us want to do battle. However, sometimes events beyond our control force this upon us. >> 2) This whole thread is about members of the OpenJDK community complaining >> about *you* publishing proprietary builds. ?They don't seem to feel like a >> part of "us". > > And I don't understand the problem, we have never have published > 'open' builds. But until 2007, the source code wasn't open either. > We could I suppose, and probably should, but we don't. > To a large degree we didn't think it made any sense because the Distros > built their own. The bigger problem I see is not GNU/Linux builds; most of us are capable of rolling one. It's Solaris and Windows builds. > So we let people know when the proprietary builds were > available because some people wanted them. > Then other people gets all bent out of shape about it. :^( > > It's like trying to get all your relatives to agree, just not possible. :^( > The problem I see is confusion; on one hand, Sun are making plenty of noise about their open source portfolio and the OpenJDK project. The other hand is handing out these dirty proprietary builds. > I'll stick my neck out a little here... > If I could somehow make some purely OpenJDK7 built zip bundles available, > with no promises on any test results and with no support. > Could we start with that? Does that help or make things worse. > I want to fix this but am only one person, or half a person sometimes, > so help me out here... > Can you provide specifics on what you would expect of any openjdk7 builds? > > Can we start a separate email thread on this? > Nice to see someone wanting to make some actual progress, and thanks for sticking your neck out :) > -kto > >> >> geir >> >> >> >> geir >> >> >>> >>> >>> -kto >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You must understand that "passing the TCK" doesn't necessarily mean >>>>> "has acceptable performance, fidelity and stability". >>>> >>>> Oh, I understand that. ?Of course, I'm still in the "getting the TCK" >>>> phase... >>>> ? http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletter.html >>>> ;) >>>> geir >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> ?Dmitri >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's valuable to the JDK product cycle for JDK builds to have early >>>>>>> access >>>>>>> exposure so people can report bugs etc. ?Sun started doing >>>>>>> very-early-access >>>>>>> releases with JDK6 and the Peabody Project, and early exposure was a >>>>>>> purpose >>>>>>> of the Regressions Contest >>>>>>> which I >>>>>>> ran in early 2006. (See my java.net blog posting of Jan 30, 2006) >>>>>>> ?I'm sure >>>>>>> you can understand the value, right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There would also be value to the OpenJDK project for reference >>>>>>> OpenJDK >>>>>>> builds to be available. ?For example to help those like you who are >>>>>>> involved >>>>>>> with packaging OpenJDK-derived builds. ?Anybody could do those builds >>>>>>> couldn't they? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think it's correct to say Sun is "pushing proprietary >>>>>>> derivatives as >>>>>>> early access OpenJDK builds.." is it? ?The name JDK7 is distinguished >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> OpenJDK7, right? ?Isn't it well known that they are approximately 96% >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> same and that there are differences in specific areas? >>>>>> >>>>>> As an interested observer and fan of open and even Free(tm) Java, I >>>>>> need to ask why would you want to have this differentiation? >>>>>> I can understand the need to provide source and/or binaries to >>>>>> commercial partners and customers under licenses that aren't the GPL, but >>>>>> given your right to relicense the whole thing, the same code should be able >>>>>> to be offered under the GPL... >>>>>> geir >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - David Herron >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Mark Wielaard >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 22:10 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I agree wholeheartedly, but have to say I long ago ceased to be >>>>>>>>> surprised by Sun builds beinge proprietary. Sadly the converse is >>>>>>>>> true; I'd be surprised by a Sun build released under the same terms >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> our IcedTea builds. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And that is indeed what is sad about this. That it seems OpenJDK >>>>>>>> builds >>>>>>>> are actually Sun builds, and by extension such things are >>>>>>>> proprietary. >>>>>>>> And that is what I object to. OpenJDK builds should be just that, >>>>>>>> OpenJDK builds distributed under the (GPL) terms everybody in our >>>>>>>> community adheres to. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If a project wants to publish "early access" builds then they really >>>>>>>> should if they feel people would like to play with the bits. But >>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>> builds should follow the standard OpenJDK project rules >>>>>>>> (http://openjdk.java.net/legal/) that everybody else also uses. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Going to Sun legal and requesting alternative proprietary terms and >>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>> publishing the code and binaries under non-free software licenses is >>>>>>>> just bad for creating a community. It is bad enough that the current >>>>>>>> SCA >>>>>>>> rules around OpenJDK assign all rights to one commercial party, Sun. >>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>> projects then abusing those rights by pushing proprietary >>>>>>>> derivatives as >>>>>>>> early access OpenJDK project builds undermines the whole community >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> equals. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are right that we have IcedTea to fix that. If you get your >>>>>>>> packages >>>>>>>> through IcedTea (derivatives) you are guaranteed that it truly is >>>>>>>> Free >>>>>>>> Software. But wouldn't it be better if we could say that about >>>>>>>> OpenJDK >>>>>>>> itself? Wouldn't that make the community stronger? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mark >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> > -- Andrew :-) Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://openjdk.java.net PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 From frans at meruvian.org Mon Jun 1 15:47:10 2009 From: frans at meruvian.org (Frans Thamura) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 22:47:10 +0700 Subject: OpenJDK projects promoting proprietary builds In-Reply-To: <17c6771e0906010845y6355e811u9a6f3c772931404@mail.gmail.com> References: <1243616198.4800.314.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <1243711898.3752.23.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <44ca3ad70905301605l13ec534bk4ed2ad7d3dd8b9af@mail.gmail.com> <58ADC029-B94C-4B08-915A-E9E935F2F245@pobox.com> <4A21BF35.4000207@Sun.COM> <4A22C483.9090500@sun.com> <39401705-2ECE-4DAD-9BD1-FB8BBAC5AD90@pobox.com> <4A22D27E.5060003@sun.com> <17c6771e0906010845y6355e811u9a6f3c772931404@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3a71add70906010847v20af6a49k13565cda3b23bc13@mail.gmail.com> let;s make a team that test the openjdk :) F On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > 2009/5/31 Kelly O'Hair : >> >> >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>> >>> On May 31, 2009, at 1:55 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On May 30, 2009, at 7:20 PM, Dmitri Trembovetski wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi David, >>>>>>> On May 30, 2009, at 7:05 PM, David Herron wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mark, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please recall that JDK != OpenJDK though for values of n >= 7 >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> difference is very small. ?The JDK7 builds have some proprietary bits >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why? ?For heaven's sake... why? >>>>>> >>>>>> Because the corresponding open source parts aren't good enough yet and >>>>>> we don't have enough resources to make them on par with the proprietary bits >>>>>> although this is what we want in the long run. >>>>>> >>>>>> Specific parts that I know of are color management, AA shape rasterizer >>>>>> and font rasterizer. >>>>> >>>>> It's been how many years that you've had to re-write? >>>> >>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ^^^^^^ >>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? we have >>>> >>>> Seems like I am reading too much "them vs. us" in these emails. >>> >>> Oh, come on. ?I don't know where to begin here. >>> >>> 1) ?I'm not a "you" :) ?I'm really happy OpenJDK exists, but as one of the >>> founder's of Apache Harmony, I think it's good that there are many >>> free/open/libre Java communities. ? I'm very interested in floss Java, which >>> is why I pay attention to this community. >>> >> >> I am also really happy all the open source projects exist, and I really >> like working on them. But I keep getting this feeling of doing battle. >> I don't want to do battle, I want to make progress on something. >> > > I don't think any of us want to do battle. ?However, sometimes events > beyond our control force this upon us. > >>> 2) This whole thread is about members of the OpenJDK community complaining >>> about *you* publishing proprietary builds. ?They don't seem to feel like a >>> part of "us". >> >> And I don't understand the problem, we have never have published >> 'open' builds. > > But until 2007, the source code wasn't open either. > >> We could I suppose, and probably should, but we don't. >> To a large degree we didn't think it made any sense because the Distros >> built their own. > > The bigger problem I see is not GNU/Linux builds; most of us are > capable of rolling one. ?It's Solaris and Windows builds. > >> So we let people know when the proprietary builds were >> available because some people wanted them. >> Then other people gets all bent out of shape about it. :^( >> >> It's like trying to get all your relatives to agree, just not possible. :^( >> > > The problem I see is confusion; on one hand, Sun are making plenty of > noise about their open source portfolio and the OpenJDK project. ?The > other hand is handing out these dirty proprietary builds. > >> I'll stick my neck out a little here... >> If I could somehow make some purely OpenJDK7 built zip bundles available, >> with no promises on any test results and with no support. >> Could we start with that? Does that help or make things worse. >> I want to fix this but am only one person, or half a person sometimes, >> so help me out here... >> Can you provide specifics on what you would expect of any openjdk7 builds? >> >> Can we start a separate email thread on this? >> > > Nice to see someone wanting to make some actual progress, and thanks > for sticking your neck out :) > >> -kto >> >>> >>> geir >>> >>> >>> >>> geir >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -kto >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You must understand that "passing the TCK" doesn't necessarily mean >>>>>> "has acceptable performance, fidelity and stability". >>>>> >>>>> Oh, I understand that. ?Of course, I'm still in the "getting the TCK" >>>>> phase... >>>>> ? http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletter.html >>>>> ;) >>>>> geir >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> ?Dmitri >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's valuable to the JDK product cycle for JDK builds to have early >>>>>>>> access >>>>>>>> exposure so people can report bugs etc. ?Sun started doing >>>>>>>> very-early-access >>>>>>>> releases with JDK6 and the Peabody Project, and early exposure was a >>>>>>>> purpose >>>>>>>> of the Regressions Contest >>>>>>>> which I >>>>>>>> ran in early 2006. (See my java.net blog posting of Jan 30, 2006) >>>>>>>> ?I'm sure >>>>>>>> you can understand the value, right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There would also be value to the OpenJDK project for reference >>>>>>>> OpenJDK >>>>>>>> builds to be available. ?For example to help those like you who are >>>>>>>> involved >>>>>>>> with packaging OpenJDK-derived builds. ?Anybody could do those builds >>>>>>>> couldn't they? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't think it's correct to say Sun is "pushing proprietary >>>>>>>> derivatives as >>>>>>>> early access OpenJDK builds.." is it? ?The name JDK7 is distinguished >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> OpenJDK7, right? ?Isn't it well known that they are approximately 96% >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> same and that there are differences in specific areas? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As an interested observer and fan of open and even Free(tm) Java, I >>>>>>> need to ask why would you want to have this differentiation? >>>>>>> I can understand the need to provide source and/or binaries to >>>>>>> commercial partners and customers under licenses that aren't the GPL, but >>>>>>> given your right to relicense the whole thing, the same code should be able >>>>>>> to be offered under the GPL... >>>>>>> geir >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - David Herron >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Mark Wielaard >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 22:10 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I agree wholeheartedly, but have to say I long ago ceased to be >>>>>>>>>> surprised by Sun builds beinge proprietary. Sadly the converse is >>>>>>>>>> true; I'd be surprised by a Sun build released under the same terms >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> our IcedTea builds. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And that is indeed what is sad about this. That it seems OpenJDK >>>>>>>>> builds >>>>>>>>> are actually Sun builds, and by extension such things are >>>>>>>>> proprietary. >>>>>>>>> And that is what I object to. OpenJDK builds should be just that, >>>>>>>>> OpenJDK builds distributed under the (GPL) terms everybody in our >>>>>>>>> community adheres to. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If a project wants to publish "early access" builds then they really >>>>>>>>> should if they feel people would like to play with the bits. But >>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>> builds should follow the standard OpenJDK project rules >>>>>>>>> (http://openjdk.java.net/legal/) that everybody else also uses. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Going to Sun legal and requesting alternative proprietary terms and >>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>> publishing the code and binaries under non-free software licenses is >>>>>>>>> just bad for creating a community. It is bad enough that the current >>>>>>>>> SCA >>>>>>>>> rules around OpenJDK assign all rights to one commercial party, Sun. >>>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>>> projects then abusing those rights by pushing proprietary >>>>>>>>> derivatives as >>>>>>>>> early access OpenJDK project builds undermines the whole community >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> equals. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are right that we have IcedTea to fix that. If you get your >>>>>>>>> packages >>>>>>>>> through IcedTea (derivatives) you are guaranteed that it truly is >>>>>>>>> Free >>>>>>>>> Software. But wouldn't it be better if we could say that about >>>>>>>>> OpenJDK >>>>>>>>> itself? Wouldn't that make the community stronger? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mark >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Andrew :-) > > Free Java Software Engineer > Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) > > Support Free Java! > Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK > http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath > http://openjdk.java.net > > PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) > Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA ?7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 > -- -- Frans Thamura Meruvian. Java and Enterprise OSS Mobile: +62 855 7888 699 Blog & Profile: http://frans.thamura.info We provide services to migrate your apps to Java (web), in amazing fast and reliable. From mark at klomp.org Wed Jun 10 07:52:33 2009 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:52:33 +0200 Subject: Early access builds In-Reply-To: <1243828534.32104.92.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> References: <1243799542.32104.89.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <4A22F481.1040203@sun.com> <1243828534.32104.92.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <1244620354.3582.11.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 05:55 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 14:20 -0700, Kelly O'Hair wrote: > > Effectively what I'm thinking is a kind of cleanroom build of an openjdk > > forest, using Fedora 9 X86 32bit, and OpenSolaris X86 32bit to start. > > I'll create a simple self-extracting tarball installer (no rpm/deb/ips packages), > > and publish them in a public openjdk area. > > No testing to start, but adding testing with published results could > > be done by just about anyone. > > If I do this right, we can in theory point at any openjdk project forest > > and provide the same build service for any project. > > That sounds like a wonderful start! So I hacked together a quick script this weekend to do this for the IcedTea repos (attached below). It has been running for a couple of days now. It isn't the most shiny solution. But I wanted something that just worked for now. In the future we can think about extending it with fancy frontends (maybe hudson integration to show jtreg results). For now it just sits there looping through the repositories checking every 15 minutes whether there have been updates (this should of course be triggered by a commit hook some day) and then does an autogen.sh && configure && make && make check reporting any build failures or changes in test results it finds on the way (it reports them to everybody that made a change since it last checked, if that gets annoying please yell and we change it to only report to the mailinglist). Then it dumps the build, sources and test results (including all .jtr files so you can easily compare) at: http://icedtea.classpath.org/builds/ Hope that is useful and can be extended to other repositories. It currently only has space for one build per repository. And sadly has to dump the documentation and debuginfo for now to preserve space. The build is done in a Debian Lenny i686 chroot environment. Which should produce binaries that run on most x86 GNU/Linux systems (Debian Lenny was chosen since it has both a pretty old glibc, but also a new enough gcj to bootstrap everything out of the box - well ok, and because the host was already running a x86_64 Debian etch variant, so setting up a lenny i686 chroot was pretty easy.). Cheers, Mark From mark at klomp.org Wed Jun 10 08:53:37 2009 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:53:37 +0200 Subject: Early access builds In-Reply-To: <1244620354.3582.11.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> References: <1243799542.32104.89.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <4A22F481.1040203@sun.com> <1243828534.32104.92.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <1244620354.3582.11.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <1244624018.3582.22.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 09:52 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 05:55 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 14:20 -0700, Kelly O'Hair wrote: > > > Effectively what I'm thinking is a kind of cleanroom build of an openjdk > > > forest, using Fedora 9 X86 32bit, and OpenSolaris X86 32bit to start. > > > I'll create a simple self-extracting tarball installer (no rpm/deb/ips packages), > > > and publish them in a public openjdk area. > > > No testing to start, but adding testing with published results could > > > be done by just about anyone. > > > If I do this right, we can in theory point at any openjdk project forest > > > and provide the same build service for any project. > > > > That sounds like a wonderful start! > > So I hacked together a quick script this weekend to do this for the > IcedTea repos (attached below). It has been running for a couple of days > now. It isn't the most shiny solution. But I wanted something that just > worked for now. In the future we can think about extending it with fancy > frontends (maybe hudson integration to show jtreg results). For now it > just sits there looping through the repositories checking every 15 > minutes whether there have been updates (this should of course be > triggered by a commit hook some day) and then does an autogen.sh && > configure && make && make check reporting any build failures or changes > in test results it finds on the way (it reports them to everybody that > made a change since it last checked, if that gets annoying please yell > and we change it to only report to the mailinglist). Then it dumps the > build, sources and test results (including all .jtr files so you can > easily compare) at: > > http://icedtea.classpath.org/builds/ > > Hope that is useful and can be extended to other repositories. > > It currently only has space for one build per repository. And sadly has > to dump the documentation and debuginfo for now to preserve space. The > build is done in a Debian Lenny i686 chroot environment. Which should > produce binaries that run on most x86 GNU/Linux systems (Debian Lenny > was chosen since it has both a pretty old glibc, but also a new enough > gcj to bootstrap everything out of the box - well ok, and because the > host was already running a x86_64 Debian etch variant, so setting up a > lenny i686 chroot was pretty easy.). Seems I forgot to actually attach the script or something stripped it away. Lets try that again. Attached the quick-and-dirty build script being used for now. Cheers, Mark -------------- next part -------------- #!/bin/bash # Copyright (C) 2009, Mark J. Wielaard # This IcedTea build script is free software: you can redistribute it # and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as # published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the # License, or (at your option) any later version. # http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html # Where to send error reports, add committers later. EMAIL=testresults at icedtea.classpath.org # Can we check somehow whether there is a build busy? # http://www.davidpashley.com/articles/writing-robust-shell-scripts.html if [ $# -ne 1 ]; then echo "build.sh takes one argument 6 or 7" exit -1; elif [ "$1" != "6" -a "$1" != "7" ]; then echo "build.sh argument must be 6 or 7" exit -1; fi ICEDTEA_DIR=$HOME/icedtea$1 ICEDTEA_BUILD_DIR=$HOME/icedtea$1-build # Build artifacts, sources and test results will be stored here. RESULTS_DIR=/var/www/builds/icedtea$1 echo "Building $ICEDTEA_DIR" echo " in $ICEDTEA_BUILD_DIR" echo " results into $RESULTS_DIR" cd $ICEDTEA_DIR HG_LAST_ID=$(hg id -i -r tip) echo "Last hg id: $HG_LAST_ID" hg pull && hg update HG_CURRENT_ID=$(hg id -i -r tip) if [ "$HG_LAST_ID" == "$HG_CURRENT_ID" ]; then echo "Nothing to do last id: $HG_LAST_ID, equals current id: $HG_CURRENT_ID" exit 1 fi echo "Rebuilding: last id: $HG_LAST_ID, current id: $HG_CURRENT_ID" # HG Template for failure emails TMPL='rev: {node|short}\nuser: {author}\ndate: {date|date}\n\n{desc|strip}\n\n' # Which people made changes between then and now? USERS=$(hg log -r$HG_LAST_ID:$HG_CURRENT_ID --template '{author|email}\n' \ | sort -u) CHANGES=$(hg log -r$HG_LAST_ID:$HG_CURRENT_ID --template \ 'rev: {node|short}\nuser: {author}\ndate: {date|date}\n\n{desc|strip}\n\n') # echo "Changes made by: $USERS" # echo "Changes: $CHANGES" # Warn everybody that made changes in case something went wrong. EMAIL="$EMAIL $USERS" # Announce the test build coming up. #(echo -n "Doing a test build for IcedTea$1"; echo; echo "$CHANGES") \ # | mail -s "IcedTea$1 build testing for $HG_CURRENT_ID" $EMAIL # Remove both 6 and 7, there is only disk space for one build echo "Removing old builds ~/icedtea6-build ~/icedtea7-build..." rm -rf ~/icedtea6-build ~/icedtea7-build mkdir $ICEDTEA_BUILD_DIR # Might contain old tar.gz/bz2 sources so we don't need to redownload. # Don't worry if cp fails, we will download fresh ones. SOURCES_DIR=$RESULTS_DIR/src cp $SOURCES_DIR/*.tar.* $ICEDTEA_BUILD_DIR/ BUILD_LOG_FILE=$HOME/build-icedtea$1.log echo "Putting build log in $BUILD_LOG_FILE" # Make sure a failure in any command in a pipe, fails the whole pipe command. set -o pipefail # Build in separate dir. # Figure out a way to use local openjdk tar.gz files # maybe just copy to to an archive dir before cleanup and then copy back. # Keep logs of build, and check if it was successfull (cd $ICEDTEA_DIR && ./autogen.sh \ && cd $ICEDTEA_BUILD_DIR \ && $ICEDTEA_DIR/configure --disable-docs \ && make) | tee $BUILD_LOG_FILE BUILD_RESULT=$? echo "Build result: $BUILD_RESULT" if [ $BUILD_RESULT -ne 0 ]; then (echo "The current IcedTea$i build fails."; \ echo "Possibly, but not necessarily, because of one of these changes:"; \ echo; \ echo "$CHANGES"; \ echo; echo; \ echo "Last part of build log: "; echo; \ tail $BUILD_LOG_FILE) \ | mail -s "IcedTea$1 build failed for $HG_CURRENT_ID" $EMAIL exit -1 fi # Run tests under fake x-server so gui tests work "normally" cd $ICEDTEA_BUILD_DIR && xvfb-run -e xvfb-errors -a -s -ac make check -k # Old results are here, new results will be stored there. TESTS_DIR=$RESULTS_DIR/test cmp $ICEDTEA_BUILD_DIR/test/jtreg-summary.log $TESTS_DIR/jtreg-summary.log TEST_RESULT=$? echo "Test results compare: $TEST_RESULT" if [ $TEST_RESULT -ne 0 ]; then (echo "The current IcedTea$i build test results changed."; \ echo; \ echo "Changed test results: "; echo; \ diff -u $ICEDTEA_BUILD_DIR/test/jtreg-summary.log \ $TESTS_DIR/jtreg-summary.log; \ echo; \ echo "More info at http://icedtea.classpath.org/builds/icedtea$1/"; \ echo; \ echo "Possibly, but not necessarily, because of one of these changes:"; \ echo; \ echo "$CHANGES") \ | mail -s "IcedTea$1 test results changed for $HG_CURRENT_ID" $EMAIL fi # Need to fixup jtreg report html files. # Escape paths for sed. # From path is absolute build path on (chrooted) file system. # To path is absolute (prefix) path on webserver. FROM_PATH="\/home\/cpdev\/icedtea$1-build\/test\/" TO_PATH="\/builds\/icedtea$1\/test\/" for i in `find $ICEDTEA_BUILD_DIR/test/*/JTreport -name \*.html`; do \ sed -i "s/$FROM_PATH/$TO_PATH/" $i; \ done rm -rf TESTS_DIR mkdir TESTS_DIR cd $ICEDTEA_BUILD_DIR mv test/*log test/jdk test/hotspot test/langtools $TESTS_DIR/ # Not enough room to keep the debuginfo, remove it for now. find $ICEDTEA_BUILD_DIR/openjdk/build/linux-i586/j2sdk-image/jre/lib \ -name \*.so \ | xargs strip --strip-debug --preserve-dates # Package up the resulting j2sdk-image dir. cd $ICEDTEA_BUILD_DIR/openjdk/build/linux-i586 tar zcf j2sdk-image.tar.gz j2sdk-image mv j2sdk-image.tar.gz $RESULTS_DIR/ # Store old tar.gz/bz2 source bundles, might be useful next time. rm -rf $SOURCES_DIR mkdir $SOURCES_DIR mv $ICEDTEA_BUILD_DIR/*.tar.* $SOURCES_DIR/ # And the actual icedtea sources used. rm -f $SOURCES_DIR/icedtea$1.tar.gz cd $ICEDTEA_DIR && hg archive --type tgz $SOURCES_DIR/icedtea$1.tar.gz From mark at klomp.org Wed Jun 10 13:26:49 2009 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:26:49 +0200 Subject: coffee tasters guild In-Reply-To: <44ca3ad70905311214j4f758d15k45dd2299b7dcdf0d@mail.gmail.com> References: <44ca3ad70905311214j4f758d15k45dd2299b7dcdf0d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1244640409.3582.38.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Hi David, On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 12:14 -0700, David Herron wrote: > Let's restart this as a new thread ... > > The idea in the back of my mind which I've not made time for would be "The > Coffee Tasters Guild". Purpose, group organized OpenJDK builds and test > results stashed on a common website. Xerxes reminded me that Omair already has setup something like that for collecting and displaying results from jtreg and mauve runs: http://icedtea.classpath.org/~omajid/testing.html (Although it seems his builder stopped somewhere last month) It even comes with the python scripts to control the whole thing (wish I remembered that when I hacked up my quick-and-dirty bash script) Connecting such reports with some autobuilders and some place to collect the test results so you can easily compare between runs would indeed be really cool. A plain text file with one-line per fail/pass would proably be easiest. Currently the icedtea builder publishes the whole jtreg JTReport and JTwork dir including .jti files for the hotspot/langtools/jdk so you can easily analyze why something failed in that particular build setup. http://icedtea.classpath.org/builds/icedtea6/test/ But that is not very space efficient (even when compressed). Cheers, Mark From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Fri Jun 12 03:07:11 2009 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:07:11 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 60 is available at the openjdk.java.net website Message-ID: <4A31C65F.6000206@sun.com> The OpenJDK source is available at: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/39565502682c The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 60 are available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) Summary of changes: http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b60.html -Xiomara From mark at klomp.org Sun Jun 14 15:13:20 2009 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:13:20 +0200 Subject: Early access builds In-Reply-To: <1244620354.3582.11.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> References: <1243799542.32104.89.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <4A22F481.1040203@sun.com> <1243828534.32104.92.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <1244620354.3582.11.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <1244992400.3633.43.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 09:52 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 05:55 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 14:20 -0700, Kelly O'Hair wrote: > > > Effectively what I'm thinking is a kind of cleanroom build of an openjdk > > > forest, using Fedora 9 X86 32bit, and OpenSolaris X86 32bit to start. > > > I'll create a simple self-extracting tarball installer (no rpm/deb/ips packages), > > > and publish them in a public openjdk area. > > > No testing to start, but adding testing with published results could > > > be done by just about anyone. > > > If I do this right, we can in theory point at any openjdk project forest > > > and provide the same build service for any project. > > > > That sounds like a wonderful start! > > So I hacked together a quick script this weekend to do this for the > IcedTea repos (attached below). It has been running for a couple of days > now. It isn't the most shiny solution. But I wanted something that just > worked for now. In the future we can think about extending it with fancy > frontends (maybe hudson integration to show jtreg results). For now it > just sits there looping through the repositories checking every 15 > minutes whether there have been updates (this should of course be > triggered by a commit hook some day) and then does an autogen.sh && > configure && make && make check reporting any build failures or changes > in test results it finds on the way (it reports them to everybody that > made a change since it last checked, if that gets annoying please yell > and we change it to only report to the mailinglist). Then it dumps the > build, sources and test results (including all .jtr files so you can > easily compare) at: > > http://icedtea.classpath.org/builds/ > > Hope that is useful and can be extended to other repositories. > > It currently only has space for one build per repository. And sadly has > to dump the documentation and debuginfo for now to preserve space. The > build is done in a Debian Lenny i686 chroot environment. Which should > produce binaries that run on most x86 GNU/Linux systems (Debian Lenny > was chosen since it has both a pretty old glibc, but also a new enough > gcj to bootstrap everything out of the box - well ok, and because the > host was already running a x86_64 Debian etch variant, so setting up a > lenny i686 chroot was pretty easy.). This has been running for a week now and seems pretty nice as a start. The builds seem usable as early access builds on a couple of systems I tried them on (Debian and Fedora). And although it doesn't test each commit individually (just because there are too many commits a day to the 6 and 7 repos to do that) it does seem like a good way to catch any issues early. The results are posted to the testresults mailinglist and to each committer since the last run individually: http://icedtea.classpath.org/mailman/listinfo/testresults A couple of bugs have been fixed in the script: - There was a typo in the TESTS_DIR moving, which prevented old results from being cleaned up. - There was an off-by-one error in the changeset selection. Mercurial revision ranges are fully open and so contain both the start and end rev given. The script now bumps the (local) revision number by one. - It now also sends email also when the build succeeded and the test results didn't change to signal the new changes were fine. Diff attached. There are a couple of improvements to make. - It would be nice to combine this with the results reported by Omair, since his web reporting interface is so much nicer: http://icedtea.classpath.org/~omajid/testing.html - The test results aren't fully stable, if you look at the changes you see that there are a couple of tests that sometimes succeed and sometimes fail. This causes too many "test results changed" emails. John VanAlten started a page to collect all failures on the wiki: http://icedtea.classpath.org/wiki/IcedTea_jtreg_bugs Hopefully we can even get to zero fail for normal runs. - We could add some extra configure options, in particular to test the cacao and zero builds. Any others? - It would be nice to make this more distributed and combine the test results from multiple machines running this build script in different setups somehow. I don't really have a plan for doing that yet though. If this is helpful, if you used the early access builds, or couldn't use them, if you know of other improvements needing to be made, or if the build/result emails annoy you as committer to no end, please discuss. Cheers, Mark From Jonathan.Gibbons at Sun.COM Mon Jun 15 00:15:56 2009 From: Jonathan.Gibbons at Sun.COM (Jonathan Gibbons) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:15:56 -0700 Subject: Early access builds In-Reply-To: <1244992400.3633.43.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> References: <1243799542.32104.89.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <4A22F481.1040203@sun.com> <1243828534.32104.92.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <1244620354.3582.11.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> <1244992400.3633.43.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <451DCBD0-41AA-47D8-A87B-EAB40555B594@sun.com> On Jun 14, 2009, at 8:13 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > - It would be nice to make this more distributed and combine the test > results from multiple machines running this build script in different > setups somehow. I don't really have a plan for doing that yet though. Note that jtdiff (distributed with jtreg) is designed to be able to compare test results from test runs on different machines, or on different days, or both together, in a 2D matrix of test results. -- Jon From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Fri Jun 19 02:28:45 2009 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:28:45 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 61 is available at the openjdk.java.net website Message-ID: <4A3AF7DD.8080802@sun.com> The OpenJDK source is available at: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/472c21584cfd The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 61 are available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) Summary of changes: http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b61.html -Xiomara From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Fri Jun 26 02:04:50 2009 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:04:50 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 62 is available at the openjdk.java.net website Message-ID: <4A442CC2.5030403@sun.com> The OpenJDK source is available at: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/c7ed15ab92ce The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 62 are available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) Summary of changes: http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b62.html -Xiomara