Accelerating the JDK release cadence

[Jonathan Bluett-Duncan]

>
> ...Github is horribly slow for larger projects.


I wonder if you could you point me to a particular open source project on
GitHub that suffers from this problem, and explain to me what slows down
exactly? I ask as I've worked with large projects like Bazel, and the only
slow operations I personally remember having encountered are downloading
large Git histories for the first time and importing such projects into
IDEs.

Cheers,
Jonathan

On 7 September 2017 at 20:12, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan <
jbluettduncan at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2. Every product that has used time-based version numbers has inevitably
>> dropped the approach (the only exception that comes to mind is MS Word).
>> When this happens, the version history is permanently polluted with large
>> version numbers. Instead of hijacking the major.minor version numbers,
>> consider placing this information in the build number (e.g.
>> 9.1.5+2017-11-15)
>
>
> Oh, really? I thought that Ubuntu and IntelliJ IDEA still follow a
> time-based version scheme.
>
> Cheers,
> Jonathan
>
> On 7 September 2017 at 20:04, cowwoc <cowwoc at bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>
>> While I like the idea of more frequent releases, I see two problems with
>> the
>> proposal in its current form:
>>
>> 1. It takes longer than 6 months for users to expose design problems.
>> Consider tagging new features with @Beta annotations, allowing the
>> breaking
>> of backward compatibility for another year or so, and eventually
>> graduating
>> them to stability by removing the @Beta tags.
>>
>> 2. Every product that has used time-based version numbers has inevitably
>> dropped the approach (the only exception that comes to mind is MS Word).
>> When this happens, the version history is permanently polluted with large
>> version numbers. Instead of hijacking the major.minor version numbers,
>> consider placing this information in the build number (e.g.
>> 9.1.5+2017-11-15)
>>
>> Gili
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://openjdk.5641.n7.nabble.com/OpenJDK-General-discussion
>> -f67169.html
>>
>
>