[11u] RFR: 8258414: OldObjectSample events too expensive

[Florian David]

Hi all,

I'm terribly sorry for the bad testing quality and all the frustration and
time lost this patch caused to the community.

As mentioned in the patch submission, I tested on Linux x86 but not Windows
and debug/fastdebug builds. I will make sure this does not happen again and
will add these platforms to my testing suite.
As it's my first contribution to the OpenJDK project, I promise that this
lesson has been learned and I'll do my best for it not to happen again next
time, along with being more responsive to the mailing list.

My apologizes,
Florian David


On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 4:08 PM Jaroslav Bachorik <j.bachorik at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I am really sorry, gmail moved this thread to a spam folder and that's why
> I didn't respond.
>
> I am preparing the rollback.
>
> -JB-
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 2:42 PM Schmidt, Lutz <lutz.schmidt at sap.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm in full support of the decision. Bad patches with multiple causes of
>> failure should be rolled back and retried - after thorough rework, testing
>> and reviews.
>>
>> The bare minimum requirement for committers pushing a change is to be at
>> least responsive on a mediocre level. Push, go away and let the others
>> clean up is generally not well accepted by the community.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Lutz
>>
>> On 23.04.21, 10:53, "jdk-updates-dev on behalf of Thomas Stüfe" <
>> jdk-updates-dev-retn at openjdk.java.net on behalf of
>> thomas.stuefe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Florian and others,
>>
>>     we decided on a clean rollback instead of letting fixes pile on. Atm
>> there
>>     is a lack of trust in this patch, sorry.
>>
>>     Please roll back it - and Alekseys subsequent build fix from
>> yesterday -
>>     back and retry with a fully tested, complete patch. Thank you.
>>
>>     Cheers, Thomas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 2:19 PM Aleksey Shipilev <shade at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>     > On 4/22/21 1:12 PM, Langer, Christoph wrote:
>>     > > Maybe for now it would be most appropriate to back it out and
>> redo it
>>     > later when the problems are understood/fixed?
>>     >
>>     > Yes, I'd vote for reversal to get 11u back to sane state.
>>     >
>>     > --
>>     > Thanks,
>>     > -Aleksey
>>     >
>>     >
>>
>>