Looking ahead: proposed Hg forest consolidation for JDK 10

[Phil Race]

The funny irony here is that the current arrangement you list below was 
introduced for
JDK7 b23 as part of the open sourcing plan (although nashorn came in 
later) when
we also switched from SCCS+teamware to mercurial.

The last  build before that - JDK 7 b22 - had just hotspot+j2se as you 
propose
plus a "top-level" repo - (if you ignore the closed repos for the plugin 
and similar).

So what goes around comes around ... but I wonder if anyone remembers 
the reasoning
and advocacy behind splitting it in the first before we spring back to 
how it was before ?

I could probably dig up some old internal emails but not quickly.

-phil



On 10/12/2016 09:25 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> Further to that, for OpenJDK 8, the relative repo sizes look like
> this (compressed):
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 andrew users 918K Aug  7 18:20 corba.tar.xz
> -rw-r--r-- 1 andrew users 6.5M Aug  7 18:22 hotspot.tar.xz
> -rw-r--r-- 1 andrew users 2.2M Aug  7 18:21 jaxp.tar.xz
> -rw-r--r-- 1 andrew users 2.2M Aug  7 18:21 jaxws.tar.xz
> -rw-r--r-- 1 andrew users  38M Aug  7 18:23 jdk.tar.xz
> -rw-r--r-- 1 andrew users 2.0M Aug  7 18:21 langtools.tar.xz
> -rw-r--r-- 1 andrew users 2.2M Aug  7 18:25 nashorn.tar.xz
> -rw-r--r-- 1 andrew users 327K Aug  7 18:20 openjdk.tar.xz
>
> The JDK repository, even compressed, is over five times the size
> of HotSpot. Adding the other repos into the JDK repository thus
> wouldn't make that much of a difference to it, even if HotSpot is
> included, whereas it will cause an order of magnitude increase compared
> to the current side of the HotSpot repositories.
>
> I think I'd thus prefer to see it cut down to two repositories. That
> would give most of the benefits I described of getting rid of all
> the superfluous repos, without bloating the requirements for HotSpot work.