RFR: clarify how to set the affects versions [v7]

[calnan]

On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 16:28:45 GMT, Alexey Ivanov <aivanov at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> calnan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
>> 
>>   updates from feedback
>
> src/guide/jbs-jdk-bug-system.md line 92:
> 
>> 90: 
>> 91: * The [Affects Version/s]{.jbs-field} isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of releases the issue is relevant to - it should initially be set to the release the issue was reproduced or identified on, and by implication it will be relevant to all releases past that point (see the [Usage of (Rel)[-na]{.jbs-label} Label](#usage-of-rel-na-label)). If it's later found to be applicable to an earlier release family then adding that earlier release is encouraged if the issue needs to be fixed in that release.
>> 92: * Do not add additional release values to [Affects Version/s]{.jbs-field} for the same release family. For example, if there is the value [11.0.2]{.jbs-value}, don't add [11.0.5]{.jbs-value}, [11.0.7]{.jbs-value} etc. Adding an additional value for a separate release family where it's still reproducible, e.g. JDK [21]{.jbs-value}, is encouraged, especially if there is not currently a feature release value set, or, it has been a few releases since it was last reproduced/reviewed. For example, if the [Affects Version/s]{.jbs-field} is JDK [8]{.jbs-value}, but it is still relevant to the latest mainline release.
> 
> Suggestion:
> 
> * Do not add additional release values to [Affects Version/s]{.jbs-field} for the same release family. For example, if there is the value [11.0.2]{.jbs-value}, don't add [11.0.5]{.jbs-value}, [11.0.7]{.jbs-value} etc. Adding an additional value for a separate release family where it's still reproducible, e.g. JDK [21]{.jbs-value}, is encouraged, especially if there is no feature release value set, or it has been a few releases since it was last reproduced/reviewed. For example, if the [Affects Version/s]{.jbs-field} is JDK [8]{.jbs-value}, but it is still relevant to the latest mainline release.
> 
> Simply the condition; the comma after “or” seems unneeded.

I think it is fine as is unless you feel strongly about it

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/guide/pull/119#discussion_r1523870786