[7u communication] JDK 7u40 released today!

[Alejandro E Murillo]

On 9/11/2013 2:23 PM, Seán Coffey wrote:
>
> 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.
I will bring this to the 7u forest in the next couple of days
via the new hsx repo for 7u (hsx/jdk7u/hotspot, which will be created 
soon).

Just to double check, we basically need to backport this changeset:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/hsx/hotspot-rt/hotspot/rev/c54a3122f9c8

correct?

-- 
Alejandro