From jon.vanalten at redhat.com  Mon Jun  3 13:26:13 2013
From: jon.vanalten at redhat.com (Jon VanAlten)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:26:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [PATCH FOR REVIEW] 7036559: ConcurrentHashMap footprint and
	contention improvements
In-Reply-To: <51A92A2B.5040708@redhat.com>
References: <478880931.2333491.1370036289999.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
	<51A92A2B.5040708@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <446078978.11145866.1370291173090.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>



----- Original Message -----
> From: "Omair Majid" <omajid at redhat.com>
> To: "Andrew Hughes" <gnu.andrew at redhat.com>
> Cc: "jdk6-dev" <jdk6-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 4:54:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH FOR REVIEW] 7036559: ConcurrentHashMap footprint and	contention improvements
> 
> On 05/31/2013 05:38 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > This fix was determined to be a prerequisite backport for the 2013-04
> > security fixes.
> > 
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/jdk6/7036559/
> 
> I did a diff between the result of this patch and the file in jdk7u
> after revision 005c0c85b0de and it looks identical, except for minor
> changes:
> 
> > --- jdk7u/jdk/src/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
> > 	2013-05-31 18:32:28.179433269 -0400
> > +++ temp/ConcurrentHashMap.java	2013-05-31 17:34:06.000000000 -0400
> > @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@
> >   *
> >   * Written by Doug Lea with assistance from members of JCP JSR-166
> >   * Expert Group and released to the public domain, as explained at
> > - * http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
> > + * http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain
> >   */
> >  
> >  package java.util.concurrent;
> > @@ -1412,7 +1412,7 @@
> >       * for each key-value mapping, followed by a null pair.
> >       * The key-value mappings are emitted in no particular order.
> >       */
> > -    private void writeObject(java.io.ObjectOutputStream s) throws
> > IOException {
> > +    private void writeObject(java.io.ObjectOutputStream s) throws
> > IOException  {
> >          // force all segments for serialization compatibility
> >          for (int k = 0; k < segments.length; ++k)
> >              ensureSegment(k);
> > @@ -1446,7 +1446,7 @@
> >       */
> >      @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
> >      private void readObject(java.io.ObjectInputStream s)
> > -        throws IOException, ClassNotFoundException {
> > +        throws IOException, ClassNotFoundException  {
> >          s.defaultReadObject();
> >  
> >          // Re-initialize segments to be minimally sized, and let grow.
> 
> I don't see any API changes in the webrev; that's good.
> 

It looks to me like those differences from cleanup changes pushed to
jdk7u and not backported.  They certainly aren't introduced in this
webrev.  Being as it's just minor whitespace and comment changes, I
don't think it's worth hunting down the specific cleanup changes to
backport from 7u, and also it doesn't seem like any reason to avoid
backporting these ConcurrentHashMap changes.

cheers,
jon

From omajid at redhat.com  Mon Jun  3 13:57:10 2013
From: omajid at redhat.com (Omair Majid)
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 16:57:10 -0400
Subject: [PATCH FOR REVIEW] 7036559: ConcurrentHashMap footprint and
	contention improvements
In-Reply-To: <446078978.11145866.1370291173090.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
References: <478880931.2333491.1370036289999.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
	<51A92A2B.5040708@redhat.com>
	<446078978.11145866.1370291173090.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <51AD0326.4070707@redhat.com>

Hi,

On 06/03/2013 04:26 PM, Jon VanAlten wrote:
> From: "Omair Majid" <omajid at redhat.com>
>> On 05/31/2013 05:38 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>>> This fix was determined to be a prerequisite backport for the 2013-04
>>> security fixes.
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/jdk6/7036559/
>>
>> I did a diff between the result of this patch and the file in jdk7u
>> after revision 005c0c85b0de and it looks identical, except for minor
>> changes:
>>
>>> --- jdk7u/jdk/src/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
>>> 	2013-05-31 18:32:28.179433269 -0400
>>> +++ temp/ConcurrentHashMap.java	2013-05-31 17:34:06.000000000 -0400
>>> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@
>>>   *
>>>   * Written by Doug Lea with assistance from members of JCP JSR-166
>>>   * Expert Group and released to the public domain, as explained at
>>> - * http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
>>> + * http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain
>>>   */
>>>  
>>>  package java.util.concurrent;
>>> @@ -1412,7 +1412,7 @@
>>>       * for each key-value mapping, followed by a null pair.
>>>       * The key-value mappings are emitted in no particular order.
>>>       */
>>> -    private void writeObject(java.io.ObjectOutputStream s) throws
>>> IOException {
>>> +    private void writeObject(java.io.ObjectOutputStream s) throws
>>> IOException  {
>>>          // force all segments for serialization compatibility
>>>          for (int k = 0; k < segments.length; ++k)
>>>              ensureSegment(k);
>>> @@ -1446,7 +1446,7 @@
>>>       */
>>>      @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
>>>      private void readObject(java.io.ObjectInputStream s)
>>> -        throws IOException, ClassNotFoundException {
>>> +        throws IOException, ClassNotFoundException  {
>>>          s.defaultReadObject();
>>>  
>>>          // Re-initialize segments to be minimally sized, and let grow.
>>
>> I don't see any API changes in the webrev; that's good.
>>
> 
> It looks to me like those differences from cleanup changes pushed to
> jdk7u and not backported.  They certainly aren't introduced in this
> webrev.  Being as it's just minor whitespace and comment changes, I
> don't think it's worth hunting down the specific cleanup changes to
> backport from 7u, and also it doesn't seem like any reason to avoid
> backporting these ConcurrentHashMap changes.
> 

I did not mean to object to the backport; I was just curious about why
there is a small difference. I am also curious about whether we intend
to do additional backports to address the performance problems (7038542:
Small performace regression in ConcurrentHashMap on c1 since CR 703655).

As you said, though, this is not a reason to hold back this patch.
Please count me as a reviewer.

Cheers,
Omair
-- 
PGP Key: 66484681 (http://pgp.mit.edu/)
Fingerprint = F072 555B 0A17 3957 4E95  0056 F286 F14F 6648 4681

From gnu.andrew at redhat.com  Tue Jun  4 01:56:38 2013
From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes)
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 04:56:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [PATCH FOR REVIEW] 7036559: ConcurrentHashMap footprint and
	contention improvements
In-Reply-To: <51A92A2B.5040708@redhat.com>
References: <478880931.2333491.1370036289999.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
	<51A92A2B.5040708@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1703364033.3440967.1370336198197.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>

----- Original Message -----
> On 05/31/2013 05:38 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > This fix was determined to be a prerequisite backport for the 2013-04
> > security fixes.
> > 
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/jdk6/7036559/
> 
> I did a diff between the result of this patch and the file in jdk7u
> after revision 005c0c85b0de and it looks identical, except for minor
> changes:
> 
> > --- jdk7u/jdk/src/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
> > 	2013-05-31 18:32:28.179433269 -0400
> > +++ temp/ConcurrentHashMap.java	2013-05-31 17:34:06.000000000 -0400
> > @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@
> >   *
> >   * Written by Doug Lea with assistance from members of JCP JSR-166
> >   * Expert Group and released to the public domain, as explained at
> > - * http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
> > + * http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain
> >   */
> >  
> >  package java.util.concurrent;
> > @@ -1412,7 +1412,7 @@
> >       * for each key-value mapping, followed by a null pair.
> >       * The key-value mappings are emitted in no particular order.
> >       */
> > -    private void writeObject(java.io.ObjectOutputStream s) throws
> > IOException {
> > +    private void writeObject(java.io.ObjectOutputStream s) throws
> > IOException  {
> >          // force all segments for serialization compatibility
> >          for (int k = 0; k < segments.length; ++k)
> >              ensureSegment(k);
> > @@ -1446,7 +1446,7 @@
> >       */
> >      @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
> >      private void readObject(java.io.ObjectInputStream s)
> > -        throws IOException, ClassNotFoundException {
> > +        throws IOException, ClassNotFoundException  {
> >          s.defaultReadObject();
> >  
> >          // Re-initialize segments to be minimally sized, and let grow.
> 

These are:

changeset:   3984:31619dfa6a4a
user:        dl
date:        Thu Apr 07 15:06:32 2011 +0100
summary:     7034657: Update Creative Commons license URL in legal notices

changeset:   3203:9e494de19690
user:        dl
date:        Wed Dec 01 21:46:52 2010 +0000
summary:     7003745: Code style cleanups (sync from Dougs CVS)

> I don't see any API changes in the webrev; that's good.
> 

Well, these changes have already been shipped in IcedTea and we've had builds
in Fedora and RHEL pass the TCK.  This is just a matter of syncing them to
OpenJDK 6.  We'll not be changing them in the process, as it would affect our
existing results.

> Do you also intend to backport the following?
> 
> changeset:   4110:e9ec52c63a9f
> user:        dl
> date:        Thu Apr 21 17:00:23 2011 +0100
> summary:     7038542: Small performance regression in ConcurrentHashMap
> on c1 since CR 703655
> 

Good spot.

We can consider this after a security update is released (which will probably
be after the June one is in too now).

We can look at including it in IcedTea first to give it some testing.

> Thanks,
> Omair
> --
> PGP Key: 66484681 (http://pgp.mit.edu/)
> Fingerprint = F072 555B 0A17 3957 4E95  0056 F286 F14F 6648 4681
> 

-- 
Andrew :)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F  8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07


From Alan.Bateman at oracle.com  Tue Jun  4 03:40:47 2013
From: Alan.Bateman at oracle.com (Alan Bateman)
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:40:47 +0100
Subject: [PATCH FOR REVIEW] 7036559: ConcurrentHashMap footprint and
	contention improvements
In-Reply-To: <478880931.2333491.1370036289999.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
References: <478880931.2333491.1370036289999.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <51ADC42F.7000309@oracle.com>

On 31/05/2013 22:38, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> This fix was determined to be a prerequisite backport for the 2013-04 security fixes.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/jdk6/7036559/
>
> Ok for OpenJDK6?
It may be that the fix that you are looking to backport is only 
applicable to CHMv7 and newer, in which case you might not need to do 
anything for jdk6.

-Alan.

From ahughes at redhat.com  Tue Jun  4 07:56:53 2013
From: ahughes at redhat.com (ahughes at redhat.com)
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:56:53 +0000
Subject: hg: jdk6/jdk6/jdk: 7036559: ConcurrentHashMap footprint and
	contention improvements
Message-ID: <20130604145713.D3A2148F2B@hg.openjdk.java.net>

Changeset: d3912e74ec28
Author:    dl
Date:      2011-04-18 16:10 +0100
URL:       http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/jdk/rev/d3912e74ec28

7036559: ConcurrentHashMap footprint and contention improvements
Reviewed-by: chegar, omajid

! src/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java


From gnu.andrew at redhat.com  Tue Jun  4 10:07:54 2013
From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes)
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:07:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [PATCH FOR REVIEW] 7036559: ConcurrentHashMap footprint and
	contention improvements
In-Reply-To: <1703364033.3440967.1370336198197.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
References: <478880931.2333491.1370036289999.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
	<51A92A2B.5040708@redhat.com>
	<1703364033.3440967.1370336198197.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1399986905.3743036.1370365674871.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>

----- Original Message -----
> ----- Original Message -----
> > On 05/31/2013 05:38 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > > This fix was determined to be a prerequisite backport for the 2013-04
> > > security fixes.
> > > 
> > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/jdk6/7036559/
> > 
> > I did a diff between the result of this patch and the file in jdk7u
> > after revision 005c0c85b0de and it looks identical, except for minor
> > changes:
> > 
> > > ---
> > > jdk7u/jdk/src/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
> > > 	2013-05-31 18:32:28.179433269 -0400
> > > +++ temp/ConcurrentHashMap.java	2013-05-31 17:34:06.000000000 -0400
> > > @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@
> > >   *
> > >   * Written by Doug Lea with assistance from members of JCP JSR-166
> > >   * Expert Group and released to the public domain, as explained at
> > > - * http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
> > > + * http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain
> > >   */
> > >  
> > >  package java.util.concurrent;
> > > @@ -1412,7 +1412,7 @@
> > >       * for each key-value mapping, followed by a null pair.
> > >       * The key-value mappings are emitted in no particular order.
> > >       */
> > > -    private void writeObject(java.io.ObjectOutputStream s) throws
> > > IOException {
> > > +    private void writeObject(java.io.ObjectOutputStream s) throws
> > > IOException  {
> > >          // force all segments for serialization compatibility
> > >          for (int k = 0; k < segments.length; ++k)
> > >              ensureSegment(k);
> > > @@ -1446,7 +1446,7 @@
> > >       */
> > >      @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
> > >      private void readObject(java.io.ObjectInputStream s)
> > > -        throws IOException, ClassNotFoundException {
> > > +        throws IOException, ClassNotFoundException  {
> > >          s.defaultReadObject();
> > >  
> > >          // Re-initialize segments to be minimally sized, and let grow.
> > 
> 
> These are:
> 
> changeset:   3984:31619dfa6a4a
> user:        dl
> date:        Thu Apr 07 15:06:32 2011 +0100
> summary:     7034657: Update Creative Commons license URL in legal notices
> 
> changeset:   3203:9e494de19690
> user:        dl
> date:        Wed Dec 01 21:46:52 2010 +0000
> summary:     7003745: Code style cleanups (sync from Dougs CVS)
> 
> > I don't see any API changes in the webrev; that's good.
> > 
> 
> Well, these changes have already been shipped in IcedTea and we've had builds
> in Fedora and RHEL pass the TCK.  This is just a matter of syncing them to
> OpenJDK 6.  We'll not be changing them in the process, as it would affect our
> existing results.
> 
> > Do you also intend to backport the following?
> > 
> > changeset:   4110:e9ec52c63a9f
> > user:        dl
> > date:        Thu Apr 21 17:00:23 2011 +0100
> > summary:     7038542: Small performance regression in ConcurrentHashMap
> > on c1 since CR 703655
> > 
> 
> Good spot.
> 
> We can consider this after a security update is released (which will probably
> be after the June one is in too now).
> 
> We can look at including it in IcedTea first to give it some testing.
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Omair
> > --
> > PGP Key: 66484681 (http://pgp.mit.edu/)
> > Fingerprint = F072 555B 0A17 3957 4E95  0056 F286 F14F 6648 4681
> > 
> 
> --
> Andrew :)
> 
> Free Java Software Engineer
> Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
> 
> PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
> Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F  8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07
> 
> 

Pushed: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/jdk/rev/d3912e74ec28
-- 
Andrew :)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F  8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07


From gnu.andrew at redhat.com  Tue Jun  4 10:09:38 2013
From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes)
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:09:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [PATCH FOR REVIEW] 7036559: ConcurrentHashMap footprint and
	contention improvements
In-Reply-To: <51ADC42F.7000309@oracle.com>
References: <478880931.2333491.1370036289999.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
	<51ADC42F.7000309@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <936744070.3743426.1370365778360.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>

----- Original Message -----
> On 31/05/2013 22:38, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > This fix was determined to be a prerequisite backport for the 2013-04
> > security fixes.
> >
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/jdk6/7036559/
> >
> > Ok for OpenJDK6?
> It may be that the fix that you are looking to backport is only
> applicable to CHMv7 and newer, in which case you might not need to do
> anything for jdk6.
> 
> -Alan.
> 

Are you referring to this fix or the security fix that requires it?  We have
very little information on the last security update, so we're playing it safe.

http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=2013-2426
-- 
Andrew :)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F  8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07


From alex.kasko.lists at gmail.com  Tue Jun 11 07:46:16 2013
From: alex.kasko.lists at gmail.com (Alex Kasko)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:46:16 +0400
Subject: Source releases questions
Message-ID: <51B73838.4030601@gmail.com>

Hi,

Some questions:

1) are there any estimates for openjdk6 source release?

2) is current tip from mercurial [1] safe for production usage (I've 
tested points 2 and 3 from release process doc [2] but I'm not sure 
about point 4 (TCK))

My current employer uses openjdk6 build 27 (with copyMemory patch) for 
server-side apps and we want to upgrade to version with latest security 
patches (and we are not ready for jdk7).


[1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/
[2] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/raw-file/tip/ReleaseProcess.html

-- 
Regards,
Alex Kasko

From gnu.andrew at redhat.com  Wed Jun 12 08:50:23 2013
From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:50:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Source releases questions
In-Reply-To: <51B73838.4030601@gmail.com>
References: <51B73838.4030601@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <374856062.1893668.1371052223952.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>



----- Original Message -----
> Hi,
> 
> Some questions:
> 
> 1) are there any estimates for openjdk6 source release?
> 
> 2) is current tip from mercurial [1] safe for production usage (I've
> tested points 2 and 3 from release process doc [2] but I'm not sure
> about point 4 (TCK))
> 
> My current employer uses openjdk6 build 27 (with copyMemory patch) for
> server-side apps and we want to upgrade to version with latest security
> patches (and we are not ready for jdk7).
> 
> 
> [1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/
> [2] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/raw-file/tip/ReleaseProcess.html
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Alex Kasko
> 

For a more immediate solution, I suggest you look at using the latest IcedTea
release, as all the GNU/Linux distributions do:

http://blog.fuseyism.com/index.php/2013/04/25/security-icedtea-1-11-11-1-12-5-for-openjdk-6-released/

It has the latest security fixes and many backports from OpenJDK 7 that also
went into the proprietary Oracle release of 6 but haven't yet made it into
OpenJDK 6.
-- 
Andrew :)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F  8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07


From alex.kasko.lists at gmail.com  Thu Jun 13 07:33:07 2013
From: alex.kasko.lists at gmail.com (Alex Kasko)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:33:07 +0400
Subject: Source releases questions
In-Reply-To: <374856062.1893668.1371052223952.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
References: <51B73838.4030601@gmail.com>
	<374856062.1893668.1371052223952.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <51B9D823.8030403@gmail.com>

On 06/12/2013 07:50 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> Hi,
>>
>> Some questions:
>>
>> 1) are there any estimates for openjdk6 source release?
>>
>> 2) is current tip from mercurial [1] safe for production usage (I've
>> tested points 2 and 3 from release process doc [2] but I'm not sure
>> about point 4 (TCK))
>>
>> My current employer uses openjdk6 build 27 (with copyMemory patch) for
>> server-side apps and we want to upgrade to version with latest security
>> patches (and we are not ready for jdk7).
>>
>>
>> [1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/
>> [2] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/raw-file/tip/ReleaseProcess.html
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Alex Kasko
>>
>
> For a more immediate solution, I suggest you look at using the latest IcedTea
> release, as all the GNU/Linux distributions do:
>
> http://blog.fuseyism.com/index.php/2013/04/25/security-icedtea-1-11-11-1-12-5-for-openjdk-6-released/
>
> It has the latest security fixes and many backports from OpenJDK 7 that also
> went into the proprietary Oracle release of 6 but haven't yet made it into
> OpenJDK 6.
Thanks, it seems IcedTea 1.12 is the best option. But I was not able to 
build it on windows-i586 (got AWT error) - I'll ask about it on 
distro-pkg-dev list.


-- 
Regards,
Alex Kasko

From gnu.andrew at redhat.com  Thu Jun 13 07:44:36 2013
From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:44:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Source releases questions
In-Reply-To: <51B9D823.8030403@gmail.com>
References: <51B73838.4030601@gmail.com>
	<374856062.1893668.1371052223952.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
	<51B9D823.8030403@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1108248229.2469201.1371134675999.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>

----- Original Message -----
> On 06/12/2013 07:50 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Some questions:
> >>
> >> 1) are there any estimates for openjdk6 source release?
> >>
> >> 2) is current tip from mercurial [1] safe for production usage (I've
> >> tested points 2 and 3 from release process doc [2] but I'm not sure
> >> about point 4 (TCK))
> >>
> >> My current employer uses openjdk6 build 27 (with copyMemory patch) for
> >> server-side apps and we want to upgrade to version with latest security
> >> patches (and we are not ready for jdk7).
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/
> >> [2] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/raw-file/tip/ReleaseProcess.html
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Alex Kasko
> >>
> >
> > For a more immediate solution, I suggest you look at using the latest
> > IcedTea
> > release, as all the GNU/Linux distributions do:
> >
> > http://blog.fuseyism.com/index.php/2013/04/25/security-icedtea-1-11-11-1-12-5-for-openjdk-6-released/
> >
> > It has the latest security fixes and many backports from OpenJDK 7 that
> > also
> > went into the proprietary Oracle release of 6 but haven't yet made it into
> > OpenJDK 6.
> Thanks, it seems IcedTea 1.12 is the best option. But I was not able to
> build it on windows-i586 (got AWT error) - I'll ask about it on
> distro-pkg-dev list.

Great; I think you may be the first person I've heard of trying it on windows-i586 :)
If there are issues, we'll do what we can to fix them.

BTW, the copy memory patch is present on IcedTea HEAD.  We could look at backporting it
to the next 1.12.x release.

> 
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Alex Kasko
> 

-- 
Andrew :)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F  8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07


From aph at redhat.com  Tue Jun 18 02:58:00 2013
From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley)
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:58:00 +0100
Subject: Source releases questions
In-Reply-To: <374856062.1893668.1371052223952.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
References: <51B73838.4030601@gmail.com>
	<374856062.1893668.1371052223952.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <51C02F28.7090508@redhat.com>

On 06/12/2013 04:50 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> Hi,
>>
>> Some questions:
>>
>> 1) are there any estimates for openjdk6 source release?
>>
>> 2) is current tip from mercurial [1] safe for production usage (I've
>> tested points 2 and 3 from release process doc [2] but I'm not sure
>> about point 4 (TCK))
>>
>> My current employer uses openjdk6 build 27 (with copyMemory patch) for
>> server-side apps and we want to upgrade to version with latest security
>> patches (and we are not ready for jdk7).
>>
>>
>> [1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/
>> [2] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/raw-file/tip/ReleaseProcess.html
> 
> For a more immediate solution, I suggest you look at using the latest IcedTea
> release, as all the GNU/Linux distributions do:
> 
> http://blog.fuseyism.com/index.php/2013/04/25/security-icedtea-1-11-11-1-12-5-for-openjdk-6-released/
> 
> It has the latest security fixes and many backports from OpenJDK 7 that also
> went into the proprietary Oracle release of 6 but haven't yet made it into
> OpenJDK 6.

If OpenJDK 6 really isn't fit for use we need a list of which backports
are in IcedTea 6 that we need.

Andrew.