Re: 11 RFR (XS) 8205956: Fix usage of “OpenJDK” in build and test instructions

[Aleksey Shipilev]

On 06/28/2018 09:14 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> On 06/28/2018 08:21 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:08 AM,  <mark.reinhold at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205956
>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/
>>>
>>> Quick links to handier HTML diffs:
>>>
>>>   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/doc/building.html.hdiff.html
>>>   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/doc/testing.html.hdiff.html
>>>
>>> “OpenJDK” is a trademarked term, per the OpenJDK Trademark Notice [1].
>>> As such it should be used only as an adjective, and not as a noun.
>>> Phrases such as “the OpenJDK” could be replaced by the more correct,
>>> and much more verbose, “the OpenJDK JDK,” or “the open-source JDK,”
>>> but in most cases the context is sufficiently clear that we can just
>>> write “the JDK.”
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, but I don't see any sense in this change!
>> 
>> And by the way, "JDK" is an Oracle trademark as well (see [1]) so this
>> change is basically a NOP.
> 
> +1
> 
> Also, "(open-source) JDK" is way too generic, and does awkwardly apply to other JDK's in the wild,
> including IBM's, Azul's, Excelsior's, etc. It stands to reason that build/test instruction for
> OpenJDK project use "OpenJDK" to describe what those instructions apply to. It seems less confusing
> to find the appropriate noun to go with "OpenJDK", e.g. "OpenJDK build", "OpenJDK binary", "OpenJDK
> workspace", etc?

I hate to be "that guy", but cannot help to notice the change was pushed [1] with comments above by
Volker and myself ignored, and not even acknowledged. I hope this is not how reviews work in
OpenJDK... JDK? work now.

-Aleksey

[1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/7c728fa9d1af