Late change to JEP 433

[Brian Goetz]

>     we're not reopening this issue now.
>
>
> Let say we have,

Let's not.

By continuing down this tangent, you're really doing Gavin a disservice 
here.  Gavin had a narrow, focused, urgent question.  By continuing this 
thread, he's stalled, and probably sitting on hot coals because we want 
to get this JEP wrapped up.  And you're reopening old issues with "but 
you could translate it differently" -- after being reminded that this is 
an already-litigated issue. This is disruptive.  I shouldn't have to ask 
twice.

It's possible you have a point,  and I get that it is frustrating to 
have a point and have no one else get it, but if you want people to get 
it, I think you need to go about it a different way.

Do you have any response to Gavin's query?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/attachments/20221115/f146b65f/attachment-0001.htm>