RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 14

[Martin Buchholz]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Paul Sandoz <paul.sandoz at oracle.com> wrote:

>
> I think that would be too pedantic as well. At this late stage in 9 i
> prefer to leave things as they are and not fiddle. Revise for 10?
>

We could, but jsr166 primitive version control technology doesn't have a
mechanism to maintain such distinctions.

I still think the jdk9 docs are misleading and we should do something to
fix them.  The high-level bit for users is "Bulk operations are
non-atomic"!  Maybe we should include that sentence?!