[8u] Request for enhancement backport approval for CR 8044235 - nashorn (and other) sources are missing in src.zip

[Rob McKenna]

This enhancement backport request is being declined.

It's not suitable to introduce this change into an update release as it leads to a significant increase on the overall size of the final build images.

Aside from continuing to carry it as a downstream build specific change, you might want to consider submitting an more curtailed enhancement request with a smaller src.zip increase instead."

    -Rob

On 05/01/17 07:11, Rob McKenna wrote:
> Thanks Jiri, this has been submitted for approval. I'll keep you posted.
> 
>     -Rob
> 
> On 05/01/17 01:15, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > There is a lot of sources missing in src.zip from jdk8 build. All those are present in jdk9 src.zip.
> > Even as jdk8 had intention to hide "private" sources, from the src.zip,
> > missing nashorn can be considered as bug.
> > However, when jdk9 reconsidered, jdk8 should follow. Most of the distros
> > adapted the patch from 8044235[1] anyway.
> > 
> > There are two approaches  possible:
> >  - add only nashorn [2] and maybe later (or during this review) also zipfs
> >  - backport (and adapt) whole 8044235 patch [3]
> > 
> > For [2], the src.zip grows by 1MB (from 23->24MB)
> > For [3], the src.zip grow double - 51MB (jdk9 have src.zip of 62MB)
> > 
> > Only SDK image is affected.
> > 
> > note - src.zip i used only for IDEs to make debugging easy, and when
> > debugging jdk itself (when *your* application is misbehaving), you are
> > stepping through all binaries, so it is not correct to hide the sources for
> > something you can step inside anyway.
> > 
> > 
> > Skippable longstory:
> > Recently I was debugging nashorn in jdk8, and realized, that nashorn sources
> > are missing in it, although they are present in jdk9.
> > Quick patch followed to build-dev:
> > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2017-January/018460.html
> > There I was made aware about
> > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8044235 and fact that it was long
> > ago recommended for backport, but never done.
> > However, the backport is much more complex then simple "add nashorn
> > sources":
> > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2017-January/018462.html
> > 
> > From review later flown up taht it should be considered as enhancement
> > instead of simple bugfix,but in al cases it should go over 8u-dev so here it
> > is.
> > 
> > Please see the whole thread of "RFC: nashorn sources are missing in src.zip"
> > on http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2017-January/thread.html#start
> > for complex info.
> > As the result of this thread I copied the patches from fedorapeople.org to cr.openjdk.net.
> > 
> > Bes regards from CZ,
> >   J.
> > 
> > [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8044235
> > [2] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jvanek/nashornMissingInSrcZip/v1/webrev/
> > [3] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jvanek/nashornMissingInSrcZip/v2/webrev/