<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>On 2023-12-06 14:22, Stewart Addison wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAL5aOfrCdpkjbH7BV=SwUykLRtAP0LAEv1cAppAtDBnL5BrFdQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">I can understand that, however we should bear in
mind that with JDK<=17 being supported regardless, if it gets
removed in a later version there is almost certainly a much
higher risk of backports "breaking" the LTS streams (as it did
recently) compared to other platforms without it being caught
prior to integration, so it might be good to catch it earlier in
the backport cycle (or maybe as a middle ground just add such
checks to JDK<=17) regardless of whether it gets removed in
>=21.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That's just a specific case of the general cost of doing
backports: stuff change in mainline, so you can never know how
much effort it will be to make the corresponding change in an
older release. That can not be, and have never been, a valid
argument for blocking changes in mainline.</p>
<p>The current policy of the update project seem to be a very much
"open arms", accepting a lot of issues for backport, even if they
are not critical for the stability or the security of the
platform. Such a policy is of course more likely to run into
problems the more the mainline diverges from the version the
update release is based on. But once again, that weight is on the
update maintainers. If it becomes too much risk of breakage when
backporting changes from mainline, then they might need to lower
their acceptance rate. Once again, it should not affect what
decisions we make for the mainline going forward.</p>
<p>/Magnus<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAL5aOfrCdpkjbH7BV=SwUykLRtAP0LAEv1cAppAtDBnL5BrFdQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Stewart...</div>
<div>--</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 at 11:54,
Alan Bateman <<a href="mailto:Alan.Bateman@oracle.com" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Alan.Bateman@oracle.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On
06/12/2023 10:22, Stewart Addison wrote:<br>
> Hi Magnus,<br>
><br>
> I put in a fix for another Win32 build break recently
but hadn't <br>
> realised it was broken again - ref <br>
> <a href="https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8319958" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8319958</a>.
Since the Win32 port is <br>
> currently only deprecated I was already wondering if we
should go for <br>
> the simple solution of having some github PR checks
added for Win32 <br>
> along with the other platforms (Obviously it would need
the parameter <br>
> to enable deprecated ports) as I feel this would help
prevent things <br>
> being merged and subsequently backported that break
things.<br>
<br>
I assume this would put a tax on everyone, the testing in
GHA is already <br>
a bit noisy. Seems like it would be better to remove the
port, I think <br>
it would be useful to hear from George Adams and Bruno
Borges to know if <br>
they plan to follow-up JEP 449 and do the next step.<br>
<br>
-Alan<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>