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

[Doerr, Martin]

Hi Florian and Jaroslav,

we actually do appreciate new contributors.
We only need to keep the quality high and the tests passing.
Thanks for your understanding and taking care of the problem.

You can also ask for additional testing if you can’t cover all platforms when requesting 11u approval.

Best regards,
Martin


From: Florian David <florian.david at datadoghq.com>
Sent: Freitag, 23. April 2021 16:50
To: Jaroslav Bachorik <j.bachorik at gmail.com>
Cc: Schmidt, Lutz <lutz.schmidt at sap.com>; Marcus Hirt <marcus.hirt at datadoghq.com>; Jaroslav Bachorík <jaroslav.bachorik at datadoghq.com>; Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>; Doerr, Martin <martin.doerr at sap.com>; Hohensee, Paul <hohensee at amazon.com>; jdk-updates-dev <jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net>; Aleksey Shipilev <shade at redhat.com>; Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [11u] RFR: 8258414: OldObjectSample events too expensive

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jdk-updates-dev-retn at openjdk.java.net> on behalf of thomas.stuefe at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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
    >
    >