RFR (T) 8214787: Zero builds fail with "undefined JavaThread::thread_state()"

[jesper.wilhelmsson at oracle.com]

The (T) in the subject line is easy to miss so I would prefer is it is also stated in the email body text if a patch is considered to be trivial.

We have seen examples where the author of a patch has considered the patch to be trivial but the reviewers had other opinions. In a case like that, if a reviewer is OK with the patch, but expects a second review because he didn't see the (T), we have a problem.

The XS, L, XL etc are actually orthogonal to wether a patch is trivial or not. Things like large cleanups/renamings/code removal etc can also be trivial even though they would take some time to review, and obviously there are really small patches that are very easy to understand but are not trivial at all.
/Jesper

> On 4 Dec 2018, at 15:41, Aleksey Shipilev <shade at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On 12/4/18 3:35 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>> Looks fine and trivial.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>> What is "T"?
> 
> That is an emerging fancy nomenclature for the interesting corner case in patch difficulty
> designation pioneered by those who do not want to guess how many X-es to put in front of XXXXS and
> save everybody's time for reading and understanding the actual difficulty as well as implicitly
> requesting the confirmation of the aforementioned difficulty from the contributors who can make the
> call about patches size and time needed to be spent reading explanations about the patch itself, or
> any necessary metadata for the patch, difficulty included.
> 
> In other words, "T" stands for "trivial".
> 
> -Aleksey
>