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

[Edvard Wendelin]

Hi,


On Nov 4, 2011, at 7:12 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:

> * Edvard Wendelin:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I don't know what 7u4 is, I assume it's the jdk7u/jdk7u forest.

Correct

> jdk7u2/jaxws doesn't built either (see my previous message), so I'm not
> sure if the issue at hand is merely lack of synchronization.  It's
> really difficult to find a JDK 7 forest which builds and receives
> (security) updates.

The bundle is missing on the server. AFAIK we haven't changed the properties file for 5 months, so someone must have accidentally removed the bundle. I'm looking into the problem and hopefully we can have it resolved soon. 

Cheers,
Edvard

> 
>> 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].
> 
> It's not clear to me what "applicable" means in this context.  Does it
> encompass just a clean Mercurial merge, or do you intend to include
> minor tweaks to essentially the same change as well?
> 
> -- 
> Florian Weimer                <fweimer at bfk.de>
> BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
> Kriegsstraße 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
> D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99