Proposal on how we should handle syncing between stabilisation forests and always open 7u

[Alan Bateman]

On 03/11/2011 16:02, Edvard Wendelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As you are aware there has been some issues with building openjdk 7u4 
> in the last couple of weeks. This has been fixed in jkd7u2, but hasn't 
> been synced to jdk7u yet. The idea was to sync fixes from 7u2 into 7u 
> when we built the stabilisation forest. Abhijit is currently working 
> on integrating the fixes from b11. However, as many of you has pointed 
> out, the time it takes for this to happen is too long, so we need to 
> revisit this topic and try to improve.
>
> My proposal going forward is that the developer submitting the fix for 
> a stabilisation forest is also responsible for pushing it to 
> jdk7u/jdk7u. An approval for the stabilisation forest would also 
> include jdk7u. If the code line has diverged and the fix is not 
> applicable, there needs to be a separate request for approval 
> according to the normal process [1].
>
> If you have any feedback, please let me know before Monday.
Edvard - what does this mean for the history? Just thinking of someone 
with a clone of jdk7u/jdk7u, they will no longer be able to do a "hg 
update" to update the working copy to get to any build of any update, 
they will only be able to get to builds that were done prior to forking 
for stabalization. Also just wondering if it will be confusing to have 
different changeset ids for the same fix.

-Alan.