Proposal to revise forest graph and integration practices for JDK 9

[Joe Darcy]

On 11/25/2013 7:19 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> I am really happy to see this issue being discussed. I'm in favor of 
> fewer, simpler structured, forests, and this proposal seems to give that.
>
> There is one potential issue I see. Having done several bulk 
> integrations into jdk8/tl over the past year, I found it nearly 
> impossible to get a stable/quite jdk8/tl. Ignoring the stability issue 
> for now ( being discussed in another thread ), if hotspot is to 
> integrate into -dev it will be nearly impossible to for the integrator 
> to actually build and test, the latest source, before pushing. As the 
> underlying repos in -dev are bound to be moving at a fast pace.
>
> It is worth noting that currently this is not an issue as master is 
> quite, apart from the scheduled/well known integration slots.
>
> Apart from the bulk integrations I did into jdk8/tl, I'm not sure that 
> anyone else downstream is doing anything similar. If so, then their 
> experiences here would be useful.
>
> This said, I'm still in favor of the current proposal, just maybe 
> needs more specifics around integrations.

Just a quick comment for now, for this reasons and others, I think it 
would be helpful if we moved the JDK to a more continuous integration 
model. The sort of challenges we have in JDK integration are exactly the 
sort of situations CI can help.

-Joe