RFR: Clarifications and X-wnf label [v3]

[Jesper Wilhelmsson]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 02:18:18 GMT, David Holmes <dholmes at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Jesper Wilhelmsson has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
>> 
>>   Update affects version
>
> src/guide/jbs-jdk-bug-system.md line 49:
> 
>> 47: * Make a reasonable attempt to narrow down which build or release the failure first appeared in.
>> 48: * Set [Affects Version/s]{.jbs-field} to the earliest JDK version(s) where the failure was seen.
>> 49:   * If the failure is found in an update train of the JDK (e.g. 11.0.x), please see (if possible) if it's also present in [mainline](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk).
> 
> Not sure the proposed change makes any grammatical difference. But the bigger question is how they should reflect any findings on mainline in the "affects version" field? This is case where I would definitely want to see the latest version known to fail as well as the earliest.

Added a sentence to indicate that adding the mainline version may be a good idea.

> src/guide/jbs-jdk-bug-system.md line 350:
> 
>> 348:       Labels of the form [11-na]{.jbs-label} or [21-na]{.jbs-label} should be used when a bug is not applicable to a **more recent** release family.
>> 349: 
>> 350:       The [Affects Version/s]{.jbs-field} field is used to indicate the releases where an issue has been seen - it's implied that the issue is also applicable to newer releases. Where this isn't the case - for instance a bug in code that was removed in *(Rel)* - then use *(Rel)*[-na]{.jbs-label} to indicate this. Note that there should only be **one** *(Rel)*[-na]{.jbs-label} label on any JBS issue.
> 
> Take the case documented above where a bug is found in 11.x and we ask they check if it affects mainline. If it doesn't then they add, e.g. `23-na`, but this tells us nothing about when it was actually fixed or disappeared. If someone checks 21 and find the bug is not there then shouldn't `21-na` also be added? Or should it replace `23-na` - with the assumption that `<rel>-na` implies `<rel+N>-na` for all `N`?

The label should be updated (replaced) in that case. I have tried to clarify this in the text.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/guide/pull/118#discussion_r1466464387
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/guide/pull/118#discussion_r1466464554