upcoming merge

[Mark Reinhold]

> Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:34:47 -0800
> From: jonathan.gibbons at sun.com

> What are the expected mechanics for the upcoming merge of the Jigsaw code into
> JDK?
> 
> First, I guess, what is the expected integration area for the merge?   tl, I
> presume?

Yes.

> Second, I presume we cannot simply push from the jigsaw forest into the tl
> forest, because of the wild and sundry nature of the individual changesets in
> the jigsaw forest -- jcheck will prevent that.

Right.

> So, how is it expected that we will review and push the bits? I'm not seeing
> much evidence of any formal or auditable review process for jigsaw at this
> point.

That's been intentional during early development.  The fun will end soon.

> For my part, in langtools, I would prefer to stage the work into the
> integration area via a (small) number of formally reviewed changesets. Is it
> practical to make that happen?  Does the overall merge have to happen somewhat
> atomically, or can we stage work into the integration area (e.g. tl) providing
> that at each stage we pass a basic set of quality tests (e.g. full build cycle,
> pass standard regression tests, etc)

I think the initial merge needs to be done in two steps: First the VM
changes, as Mandy pointed out, and then the jdk and langtools changes.

If you want to do javac in phases then we could integrate the current
jigsaw langtools and jdk repos in the same step, and then you could push
the fully-module-aware javac later on.

Given all the interdependences I'm not sure it'd be worth slicing the
merge any more finely than that, but I'm open to suggestions.

Once we finish the current work in the jdk repo -- hopefully in the next
week or so -- my plan is to generate a big webrev against the current TL
forest which we can parcel out piecewise to appropriate reviewers.  In
parallel with that we'll draft some basic documentation and submit the
CCC requests.

- Mark