[lworld] RFR: 8373507: [lworld] Add override keyword to *Klass classes

[Axel Boldt-Christmas]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 09:51:03 GMT, Marc Chevalier <mchevalier at openjdk.org> wrote:

> While problems I imagine are rather easy to solve, they might come more than once, and be an annoyance on the way of merging (that seems already painful enough as it is). I can imagine that the urgency of getting this change in valhalla justifies not to put it in mainline and wait for the next jdk merge, but is it planned to do the same in mainline soon, to avoid mentioned issues, and so mainline can also benefit from the change? If so, it would be nice to have a JBS issue to track that.

The plan is to push this into main line after it is in Valhalla repo. (Technically it can be done in parallel between, however i wanted buy-in here first).

>  I can imagine that the urgency of getting this change in valhalla justifies not to put it in mainline and wait for the next jdk merge

Maybe I am not understanding what you are trying to say here, but I do however not see how it is better to merge conflicting changes into mainline without a fix ready for Valhalla. In general I would say that merging into the project branch first and then breaking out patches for the upstream repo would result in less work. 

If this was just put into mainline, the next merge would not build, and resolving that would require implementing this patch (or reverting the main line patch as a part of the merge). Fairly trivial in this case, but would apply to most change sets of this nature. 

Maybe I am think about this wrong, or is missing something obvious. But to me merging changes into a downstream branch first and then upstreaming common changes seems like it would result in less work and lest amount of blockage in most cases.

>  If so, it would be nice to have a JBS issue to track that.

I agree, I should have been more clear, not just saying it should be in mainline, but that if we agree to this change it will be in mainline. Created: [JDK-8373668](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8373668) / openjdk/jdk#28820

_I think in the general case this might not be the best workflow, as we should probably only upstream changes which we have found to be "stable". Right now there is an effort to reduce the 401 change set to its essentials. This involves cleaning up unnecessary vestigial parts, upstreaming stable mainline changes and finalising the Valhalla changes. Deciding that a change set is in the `upstreaming stable mainline change` category when it is introduced seems difficult. In this particular instance it does apply._

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/1787#issuecomment-3654825459