Test Backports

[Joe Darcy]

Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> On 16 April 2010 02:09, Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote:
>   
>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>     
>>> On 15 April 2010 02:03, Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> On 04/11/10 01:42 PM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10 April 2010 03:40, Kelly O'Hair <kelly.ohair at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:20 PM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10 April 2010 01:48, Kelly O'Hair <kelly.ohair at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 9, 2010, at 5:05 PM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just waiting on Kelly's reponse now wrt. the HotSpot source/target fix.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you clarify what response you are waiting on?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, sorry it's this one:
>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/2010-April/001464.html
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't clear whether you were ok with the HotSpot change or wanted
>>>> more time to review.  The patch is pretty much as-is in OpenJDK7, the
>>>> only difference being the version change from 6 to 5.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The hotspot file changes look ok, but I have no idea how the hotspot
>>>> changes are being handled for openjdk6.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We regularly import from the stablisation branches:
>>>>
>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/hsx/hsx14/master/ (OpenJDK6 b17 & b18)
>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/hsx/hsx16/master/ (OpenJDK6 b19)
>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/hsx/hsx17/master/ (OpenJDK6 b20?)
>>>>
>>>> The last one, hs17, includes the OpenJDK7 version of this fix.
>>>> Including an OpenJDK6 version now with 1.5 source and target versions
>>>> has the advantage that we won't bring in a version that requires
>>>> source and target versions of 1.6 from hs17.
>>>>
>>>> Joe, does b20 sound appropriate for hs17?  I know it's a bit soon
>>>> after hs16, but the proprietary JDK6 is already moving towards this
>>>> and we could do with catching up.  It will be take time for such an
>>>> OpenJDK6 release to roll through into an IcedTea6 release and then the
>>>> distros anyway, so I'd prefer sooner rather than later.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure of the timeline for hs17.
>>>>
>>>> At some point, the copyright notices in the OpenJDK 6 repo will be
>>>> changed
>>>> from Sun -> Oracle.  A more general announcement about this process and
>>>> the
>>>> new conventions will be forthcoming.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> This has already happened in hs17.  I queried the rather strange
>>> ranges used on the new notices earlier this week.
>>>
>>> Making these copyright changes, at
>>>
>>>       
>>>> least in the langtools and jdk repos, might warrant a separate build with
>>>> just those changes, in which case the upgrade of the HotSpot sources to
>>>> HS
>>>> 17 (with changed copyrights?) might occur in build 21 or later.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Do we really need a new build just for that?  I doubt we'd bother
>>> upgrading IcedTea6 to such a build just for that change.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> I don't think a new build number is strictly required for the copyright
>> change, but I think it makes the change easier to administer: "before build
>> N, Sun copyrights; build N and later, Oracle copyrights."
>>
>> I agree there would be little motivation for IcedTea 6 to pick up that build
>> just to get new copyright notices.
>>
>> -Joe
>>
>>
>>     
>
> Ok, do you have any idea when these changes will happen?  My worry is
> that this effectively means a block on OpenJDK6 activity until then.
>   

I think this could be taken care of in the next two weeks.

> Assuming we want b20 to be the N mentioned above, we could upgrade
> HotSpot to 17 as part of b20, bringing with it both the new copyrights
> and keeping us in sync with the proprietary JDK6 (hs17b13, the current
> build, will be used in 6u21 b03 -
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2010-April/002843.html).
>  Then it really would be the case that all copyrights change in that
> build and we also have a single new feature (hs17) too.  The only
> changes to langtools & jdk would be the copyrights.
>
> Does this sound sensible? 
Yes.

>  The alternative for HotSpot would be to
> change the copyrights on the current OpenJDK6 version, which would
> duplicate the work already done on hs17 and may make merging hs17
> harder.
>   

I agree that path would be undesirable.

> Will the copyrights in CORBA, JAXP and JAXWS be changing?
>
>   

Yes.  For jaxp and jaxws, new source files will need to be generated.

-Joe