On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:20:44 GMT, Daniel Jeliński wrote:
> The RejectedExecutionException was thrown when the thread executing
> `Server.start` managed to shut down the `compilerThreadPool` before the
> thread executing `Server.handleRequest` submitted the compilation task.
>
> This patch remov
Please review the change to update to using `jtreg` **7.4**.
The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In addition,
the `requiredVersion` has been updated in the various `TEST.ROOT` files.
Testing:
On Thu, 2 May 2024 09:48:51 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review the change to update to using `jtreg` **7.4**.
>
> The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
> version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In
>
On Thu, 2 May 2024 09:48:51 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review the change to update to using `jtreg` **7.4**.
>
> The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
> version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In
>
On Thu, 2 May 2024 09:48:51 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review the change to update to using `jtreg` **7.4**.
>
> The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
> version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In
>
Please review the change to update to using jtreg 7.
The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In addition,
the `requiredVersion` has been updated in the various `TEST.ROOT` files.
-
C
On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 08:24:21 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review the change to update to using jtreg 7.
>
> The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
> version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In
> addition, the `
.ROOT`
> files.
Christian Stein has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 10 commits:
- Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into JDK-8289798-jtreg-7
- Revert junit.java
Commit
https://g
.ROOT`
> files.
Christian Stein has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 11 commits:
- Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into JDK-8289798-jtreg-7
- Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into JDK-8289798-jtreg-7
-
.ROOT`
> files.
Christian Stein has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
Update configure to check for jtreg 7 or later
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9393/files
- new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9
.ROOT`
> files.
Christian Stein has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 13 commits:
- Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into JDK-8289798-jtreg-7
- Update configure to check for jtreg 7 or later
- Merge branch '
On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 09:14:12 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Hello Christian, is it intentional that in some file the minimum required
> jtreg version is represented as `7` (`lib-tests.m4`) and in some other files
> as `7+1` (GitHub actions config file, then the TEST.ROOT files)?
Yes. Some systems
.ROOT`
> files.
Christian Stein has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 14 commits:
- Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into JDK-8289798-jtreg-7
- Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into JDK-8289798-jtreg-7
- Up
On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 06:36:04 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> Is jtreg 7 downward compatible? Can I use it to test older JDKs, if yes, down
> to which version?
Yes, down to JDK 11.
Quote from [Coming soon: jtreg
7](https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/jdk-dev/2022-August/006869.html)
> Also starting
On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 07:38:33 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> So I guess at the minimum we would have to downport those test changes to be
> able to test older JDKs with the new jtreg, right?
Yes. Otherwise those tests will fail as they still do depend on hard-coded
names of 3rd-party JAR files. Fin
On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 08:24:21 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review the change to update to using jtreg 7.
>
> The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
> version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In
> addition, the `
On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 13:22:43 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> The sjavac ("smart javac") was an ambitious project. It should parallelize
> java compilation, create a background daemon process that kept the JVM "hot"
> with the JITted javac code, define a public api so only noticeable changes in
On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 14:06:16 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> Or is the replacement so imminent that it's not worth the effort?
This. I aim to replace `javacserver` with a well-tested `javatoolportal`
buildtool in the coming months. An almost working POC is already available -
but forcing it to go
On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 23:40:30 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Now that the javacserver no longer has any ambitions outside being a
>> buildtool customized for the JDK build process, a lot of abstractions and
>> generalizations can be removed.
>>
>> This will allow the actual behavior to be mo
Please review the change to update to using jtreg `7.1`.
The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In addition,
the requiredVersion has been updated in the various `TEST.ROOT` files.
This pull requ
On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 14:44:12 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review the change to update to using jtreg `7.1`.
>
> The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
> version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In
>
Please review the change to update to using jtreg 7.1.1.
The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In addition,
the requiredVersion has been updated in the various `TEST.ROOT` files.
This pull requ
On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 16:07:44 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review the change to update to using jtreg 7.1.1.
>
> The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
> version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In
>
On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 16:07:44 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review the change to update to using jtreg 7.1.1.
>
> The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
> version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In
>
.ROOT`
> files.
>
> This pull request was created by copying the following and using 7.1.1 at
> appropriate places:
> - https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/11416
Christian Stein has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
commits since the last revision:
.ROOT`
> files.
>
> This pull request was created by copying the following and using 7.1.1 at
> appropriate places:
> - https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/11416
Christian Stein has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
commits have been removed. Incremental vie
On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 17:45:06 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
>> Please review the change to update to using jtreg 7.1.1.
>>
>> The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
>> version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this fi
On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 16:07:44 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review the change to update to using jtreg 7.1.1.
>
> The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
> version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In
>
Please review the change to update to using jtreg 7.2.
The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In addition,
the requiredVersion has been updated in the various `TEST.ROOT` files.
-
C
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 14:56:16 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review the change to update to using jtreg 7.2.
>
> The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
> version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In
>
Please review this change to use the pre-installed JDK 17 for building jtreg
when running on GitHub Actions.
-
Commit messages:
- Use JDK 17 to build jtreg
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14448/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=14448&range=00
Issue
> Please review this change to use the pre-installed JDK 17 for building jtreg
> when running on GitHub Actions.
Christian Stein has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
Update action.yml
-
Changes:
- all:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 13:38:16 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review this change to use the pre-installed JDK 17 for building jtreg
> when running on GitHub Actions.
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: 8aad881e
Author:Christian Stein
URL:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:49:33 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> Do you know why this helped?
No, unfortunately not: _"Switching from 11 to 17 seems to mend the (unknown
underlying) issue for the time being."_
A test build using the same JDK as pre-installed on GitHub-hosted runners on my
local machin
Hi all,
This pull request contains a backport of commit
[8aad881e](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/8aad881e803fddc26f45270f779ff0c0e5a095d8)
from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
The commit being backported was authored by Christian Stein on 13 Jun 2023 and
was
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 12:39:00 GMT, Martin Doerr wrote:
> Could you enable GitHub Actions and run the tests, please?
I enabled workflows on the fork the bot created for me - how do I trigger a run
now? Manually via
https://github.com/openjdk-bots/jdk21/actions/workflows/main.yml and use the
def
> Hi all,
>
> This pull request contains a backport of commit
> [8aad881e](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/8aad881e803fddc26f45270f779ff0c0e5a095d8)
> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
>
> The commit being backported was authored by Chri
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 18:45:04 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This pull request contains a backport of commit
>> [8aad881e](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/8aad881e803fddc26f45270f779ff0c0e5a095d8)
>> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.o
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 10:07:01 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This pull request contains a backport of commit
> [8aad881e](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/8aad881e803fddc26f45270f779ff0c0e5a095d8)
> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
Please review this change to use the boot JDK for building jtreg when running
on GitHub Actions.
This is a best-effort follow-up change to
- #14448
which didn't have the desired results - the `Bad address` error does still
appear with using the pre-installed JDKs 11 and 17.
Tests using the boot
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 08:45:01 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> Wait, so why does it fix the bug? Is it a MSYS path conversion bug?
It does not fix the bug, it works around it. Something (in MSYS) failes to work
(calling `javac`) that used to work without problem until some week ago (new
version o
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 06:05:16 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review this change to use the boot JDK for building jtreg when running
> on GitHub Actions.
>
> This is a best-effort follow-up change to
> - #14448
> which didn't have the desired results - the `Bad ad
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:14:10 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Please review this change to use the boot JDK for building jtreg when
>> running on GitHub Actions.
>>
>> This is a best-effort follow-up change to
>> - #14448
>> which didn't have the desired results - the `Bad address` error does still
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 06:05:16 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review this change to use the boot JDK for building jtreg when running
> on GitHub Actions.
>
> This is a best-effort follow-up change to
> - #14448
> which didn't have the desired results - the `Bad ad
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:14:10 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Please review this change to use the boot JDK for building jtreg when
>> running on GitHub Actions.
>>
>> This is a best-effort follow-up change to
>> - #14448
>> which didn't have the desired results - the `Bad address` error does still
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:08:41 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address the recent
> github actions failures?
>
> As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8310259 the commit in this PR
> pins the `msys2/setup-msys2` to a previous releas
On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 11:39:21 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this change which backports the fixes for
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8310259?
>
> This wasn't a clean backport because this also brings in
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8309934 which in theo
Please review the change to update to using jtreg 7.3.
The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In addition,
the `requiredVersion` has been updated in the various `TEST.ROOT` files.
Testing: tier1
On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 09:06:19 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review the change to update to using jtreg 7.3.
>
> The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
> version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In
>
Please review the change to update to using jtreg 7.3,1.
The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In addition,
the `requiredVersion` has been updated in the various `TEST.ROOT` files.
This change
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 07:24:14 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review the change to update to using jtreg 7.3,1.
>
> The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
> version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In
>
Please review this change to update all workflows to use `actions/checkout@v4`.
Find the associated release notes here:
https://github.com/actions/checkout/releases/tag/v4.0.0
-
Commit messages:
- 8315863: [GHA] Update checkout action to use v4
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 14:47:41 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review this change to update all workflows to use
> `actions/checkout@v4`.
>
> Find the associated release notes here:
> https://github.com/actions/checkout/releases/tag/v4.0.0
Mainly because the underlying Node
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 14:47:41 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review this change to update all workflows to use
> `actions/checkout@v4`.
>
> Find the associated release notes here:
> https://github.com/actions/checkout/releases/tag/v4.0.0
This pull request has now
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:16:36 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> Please wait for GHA to complete before integrating GHA patches!
Yes, sure. Next time, I'll wait for completion - this time, I checked that
`actions/checkout@v4` steps were successfully run in
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/15620/c
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:05:25 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> Currently, the man pages are stored as troff (a text format) in the open
> repo, and a content-wise identical copy is stored as markdown (another text
> format) in the closed repo.
>
> Since markdown is preferred to troff in terms o
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:46:33 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Currently, the man pages are stored as troff (a text format) in the open
>> repo, and a content-wise identical copy is stored as markdown (another text
>> format) in the closed repo.
>>
>> Since markdown is preferred to troff in te
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:50:21 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Currently, the man pages are stored as troff (a text format) in the open
>> repo, and a content-wise identical copy is stored as markdown (another text
>> format) in the closed repo.
>>
>> Since markdown is preferred to troff in te
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:05:25 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> Currently, the man pages are stored as troff (a text format) in the open
> repo, and a content-wise identical copy is stored as markdown (another text
> format) in the closed repo.
>
> Since markdown is preferred to troff in terms o
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 11:11:54 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Currently, the man pages are stored as troff (a text format) in the open
>> repo, and a content-wise identical copy is stored as markdown (another text
>> format) in the closed repo.
>>
>> Since markdown is preferred to troff in te
Please review the change to update to using jtreg 7.5.1.
The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In addition,
the `requiredVersion` has been updated in the various `TEST.ROOT` files.
_Testing..._
On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 11:26:03 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review the change to update to using jtreg 7.5.1.
>
> The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
> version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In
>
.ROOT`
> files.
>
> Tested with tier 1 — tier 8.
Christian Stein has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
Update TEST.ROOT in `test/docs`
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20766/files
- new: htt
On Fri, 9 May 2025 09:09:34 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote:
> At the moment I am awaiting jtreg 7.6, I therefore guess the timeout factor
> change to 1 will happen after the fork.
Note, that I moved the timeout configuration feature to `jtreg` 7.5.2 - which
will be released soon.
-
PR Co
On Fri, 9 May 2025 04:54:52 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
> [...]
> ** though another option would be to update the jtreg default timeout instead.
And affect all other tests, too? I'd rather let the default stay on the former
hard-coded 120s value.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org
On Mon, 26 May 2025 05:54:10 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
>> Please review the change to update to using jtreg 7.5.2.
>>
>> The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
>> version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this fi
.ROOT`
> files.
>
> Tested with tier 1 — tier 8.
Christian Stein has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains three additional
commits
On Wed, 28 May 2025 11:14:22 GMT, Nizar Benalla wrote:
>> I'll split the releases over two lines in the next update. The line is a
>> little too long.
>
> Thinking about this again, could we represent the supported versions more
> concisely? like `8-26` or `from 8 to 26`.
Another variant:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 05:54:10 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
>> Please review the change to update to using jtreg 7.5.2.
>>
>> The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
>> version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this fi
Please review the change to update to using jtreg 7.5.2.
The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In addition,
the `requiredVersion` has been updated in the various `TEST.ROOT` files.
Tested with
On Fri, 16 May 2025 09:51:56 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review the change to update to using jtreg 7.5.2.
>
> The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
> version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In
>
Please review the change to update to using jtreg 8.
The primary change is to the `jib-profiles.js` file, which specifies the
version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In addition,
the requiredVersion has been updated in the various `TEST.ROOT` files.
-
Com
72 matches
Mail list logo
