RFC: JDK 9 Sandbox Forest Proposal

[Chris Hegarty]

.. reviving this thread, as I'm not sure that this comment was ever 
answered (at least not that I can find).

On 26/09/14 21:15, Omair Majid wrote:
> * Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> [2014-09-22 16:36]:
>> One reason I'd like to see the JDK organization uses branches for this
>> project is so that branches could be included in our toolbox of features to
>> use for multi-release work.
>
> Please also consider including 'bookmarks' in the toolbox too. What
> mercurial calls 'bookmarks' is what other version control systems (such
> as git) call branches. It seems like 'bookmarks' make much more sense
> for use in feature-branches than 'branches'.

I'm inclined to think that branches are more suited to the kind of 
development that we expect to happen in the sandbox.

Branches are permanent and global, and are part of the changeset, which 
makes it easier to track specific feature work. I think this becomes 
more important when there are many lines of development happening in 
parallel, and these lines need to sync changes from the JDK 9 mainline. 
It needs to be easy to identify the latest changeset from jdk9/dev, and 
the latest changeset in your development line.

For example, I find it easily understandable to view the output of 'hg 
log' when switching between branches. A typical feature branch need only 
"see", in any meaningful manner, the default branch and the feature line 
branch, all else can be considered noise.

-Chris.

> Thanks,
> Omair