From davidalayachew at gmail.com  Sun Sep  7 06:44:12 2025
From: davidalayachew at gmail.com (David Alayachew)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2025 02:44:12 -0400
Subject: Asking for JEP 1 to be revised to include details of JEP 2.0 Process
 Proposal
Message-ID: <CAA9v-_Ot_Yd_PYQPix7ri814O=E1b5_RAQCg5puSFBUT6R8yVw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

At the very top of JEP 1, there is the following snippet.

> *NOTE: Much of this document is*
> *superseded by the JEP 2.0 Process*
> *Proposal, in which JEPs are created and*
> *maintained as a custom "JEP" issue type in*
> *the JDK Bug System. Please see the*
> *proposal for details. That proposal will*
> *eventually be folded into this document.*

After reading through 2.0 (not to be confused with JEP 2), it seems like
2.0's reason for existing is to communicate what details from JEP 1 have
changed, now that we are using JBS instead of Mercurial to house the JEP's.
It also appears that the "folding" has not yet completed.

I am trying to *fully* understand the *current* "spec" of a JEP and the JEP
Process, so wanted to make sure that I am looking at the right version.

2.0 only contains the details of JEP 1 that have changed. And while I am
fine mentally "rebasing" the changes of 2.0 against JEP 1, I'd also prefer
to look at a single source of truth.

Could we complete the "folding" of JEP 2.0 Process Proposal into JEP 1? It
seems like the process outlined in 2.0 is active and in use, but just not
explicitly documented in JEP 1, other than the notice.

Thank you for your time and help.
David Alayachew
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20250907/998e381c/attachment.htm>

From davidalayachew at gmail.com  Sun Sep  7 06:47:44 2025
From: davidalayachew at gmail.com (David Alayachew)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2025 02:47:44 -0400
Subject: Asking for JEP 1 (and 2) to be revised to include details of JEP
 2.0 Process Proposal
In-Reply-To: <CAA9v-_Ot_Yd_PYQPix7ri814O=E1b5_RAQCg5puSFBUT6R8yVw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA9v-_Ot_Yd_PYQPix7ri814O=E1b5_RAQCg5puSFBUT6R8yVw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAA9v-_M33_jRWdahRPRj8rFHZ+oot3epCUw+Da0b00zkJZHdBA@mail.gmail.com>

Also, this would (necessarily) require folding the changes from JEP 2.0
Process Proposal into JEP 2, as listed in the bottom of the JEP 2.0 Process
Proposal.

*(Again, JEP 2.0 Process Proposal is not to be confused with JEP 1 or 2.)*

On Sun, Sep 7, 2025, 2:44?AM David Alayachew <davidalayachew at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> At the very top of JEP 1, there is the following snippet.
>
> > *NOTE: Much of this document is*
> > *superseded by the JEP 2.0 Process*
> > *Proposal, in which JEPs are created and*
> > *maintained as a custom "JEP" issue type in*
> > *the JDK Bug System. Please see the*
> > *proposal for details. That proposal will*
> > *eventually be folded into this document.*
>
> After reading through 2.0 (not to be confused with JEP 2), it seems like
> 2.0's reason for existing is to communicate what details from JEP 1 have
> changed, now that we are using JBS instead of Mercurial to house the JEP's.
> It also appears that the "folding" has not yet completed.
>
> I am trying to *fully* understand the *current* "spec" of a JEP and the
> JEP Process, so wanted to make sure that I am looking at the right version.
>
> 2.0 only contains the details of JEP 1 that have changed. And while I am
> fine mentally "rebasing" the changes of 2.0 against JEP 1, I'd also prefer
> to look at a single source of truth.
>
> Could we complete the "folding" of JEP 2.0 Process Proposal into JEP 1? It
> seems like the process outlined in 2.0 is active and in use, but just not
> explicitly documented in JEP 1, other than the notice.
>
> Thank you for your time and help.
> David Alayachew
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20250907/828c5a17/attachment.htm>

From davidalayachew at gmail.com  Mon Sep  8 13:14:19 2025
From: davidalayachew at gmail.com (David Alayachew)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2025 09:14:19 -0400
Subject: Where do I direct questions about the Playground feature on the
 dev.java website?
Message-ID: <CAA9v-_PewcJ-1bRzDVPHn+e9MQ0u990j65D1RYj-zQn4CAPoSg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

I have some feedback to give, regarding the Playground feature on the
https://dev.java website, found here --> https://dev.java/playground/.

Which mailing list is appropriate to direct this feedback to?

Thank you for your time and help.
David Alayachew
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20250908/d028c1d8/attachment-0001.htm>

From ethan at mccue.dev  Mon Sep  8 13:18:56 2025
From: ethan at mccue.dev (Ethan McCue)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2025 09:18:56 -0400
Subject: Where do I direct questions about the Playground feature on the
 dev.java website?
In-Reply-To: <CAA9v-_PewcJ-1bRzDVPHn+e9MQ0u990j65D1RYj-zQn4CAPoSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA9v-_PewcJ-1bRzDVPHn+e9MQ0u990j65D1RYj-zQn4CAPoSg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+NR86j4dm9LHgtRiPhzrhawqp2TMUPvB6KPHYMyBztK4tLxoA@mail.gmail.com>

Is it the issue where the first time you highlight code it gets deleted? If
it's that I've heard through the grapevine a fix is coming

On Mon, Sep 8, 2025, 9:17?AM David Alayachew <davidalayachew at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have some feedback to give, regarding the Playground feature on the
> https://dev.java website, found here --> https://dev.java/playground/.
>
> Which mailing list is appropriate to direct this feedback to?
>
> Thank you for your time and help.
> David Alayachew
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20250908/d4abf293/attachment.htm>

From daniel at wwwmaster.at  Mon Sep  8 16:14:10 2025
From: daniel at wwwmaster.at (Daniel Schmid)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2025 18:14:10 +0200
Subject: Where do I direct questions about the Playground feature on the
 dev.java website?
In-Reply-To: <CAA9v-_PewcJ-1bRzDVPHn+e9MQ0u990j65D1RYj-zQn4CAPoSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA9v-_PewcJ-1bRzDVPHn+e9MQ0u990j65D1RYj-zQn4CAPoSg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ad9bdd3f-d31f-419e-806b-425b043a87d5@wwwmaster.at>

Hi,

As far as I know, the dev.java site and the playground is not maintained 
by OpenJDK but Oracle's devrel group.

While there is no mailing list (I know about), the issue tracker at 
https://github.com/java/devrel/issues should be fine for that purpose.

On 08/09/2025 15:14, David Alayachew wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have some feedback to give, regarding the Playground feature on the 
> https://dev.java website, found here --> https://dev.java/playground/.
>
> Which mailing list is appropriate to direct this feedback to?
>
> Thank you for your time and help.
> David Alayachew
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20250908/b1a4c9c7/attachment.htm>