[7u communication] JDK 7u40 released today!

[Seán Coffey]

On 11/09/13 20:35, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On 11/09/13 16:33, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> It would have been good to have had more warning than just "mid September"
>>> [0].
>>> I see no discussion of testing being carried out on u40 or a more precise
>>> release date.
>> Better early than late I hope! We've been waiting for 7u40 for some
>> time. I haven't seen any contributor discuss testing details of 7u40 in
>> detail. From an Oracle perspective, I know alot of resources have been
>> dedicated to the project and as communicated previously testing results
>> were good.
>>
>> There's an ongoing project where jdk 8 EA binaries have test results
>> published on a build by build basis[1]. You could make contact with that
>> team [2] and see if 7u EA results can be published.
> Thanks.  I wasn't aware of these.  Are these "EA binaries" OpenJDK?
AFAIK, the Java SE 8 EA binary that's released weekly is used for 
testing. That binary shares a codebase with OpenJDK and results from it 
would be a good indicator.
>   The link
> you sent seems to point to something under a proprietary license, suggesting
> this are not OpenJDK builds.  If so, is there any testing of OpenJDK builds?
That's a good question for all contributors to OpenJDK. Probably best to 
ask on the OpenJDK quality mailing list also.
>
> Something as simple as OpenJDK having been built on architecture x with
> options y would be helpful.  The jtreg tests here are a bonus.
Agreed.
>
> The Zero failure I found was during the build.
>
>>> It appears that Zero is broken in u40 by 8016131.  How do I go about
>>> getting
>>> this fix [1] into the u40 branch?  Is that possible?
>> 7u40 branch ? 7u40 has shipped. 8016131 was fixed in July. A push to
>> jdk7u-dev will be possible. I've created a bug for you:
>>
>> 8024648: 8016131 breaks Zero port
> That was part of my point.  There's some mention of 7u40 appearing in mid-September
> and then it suddenly appears yesterday evening, with no further warning.  I was still
> testing builds of it on various platforms and would have liked to have include the Zero
> fix in u40.
This issue should have been raised back in early August when 8022188 was 
reported. Has anyone been testing Zero builds for 7u codebase? It's a 
team effort. 7u40 has been ramping down since mid June [1]
>
> I'm not sure there's much point putting it in u60 as no doubt they'll be a further HotSpot pull
> which will pick up 8022188 [0] already mentioned by Omair.  I didn't find that changeset
> until I'd already written the same fix (identical in fact) for u40 and Omair's couldn't be
> backported anyway as it carries other changes (a habit I, incidentally, prefer to avoid).
> I'm happy to push my version though, if wanted.
>
> However, my main concern is that u40 won't built Zero.  Are there going to be no further updates to it,
> not even for security fixes?
Let's get the fix into the 7u forest (via hsx). CPU changesets get 
pushed to the jdk7u forest when the CPU releases.

regards,
Sean.


[1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk7u-dev/2013-July/007201.html