Future jdk9u updates & 9-critical-request

[dalibor topic]

On 06.02.2018 21:51, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> So we can expect more broken releases in the future?

Not from Oracle, as Oracle doesn't plan to release another OpenJDK 9 
Update.

What platforms the next set of maintainers of the jdk9u forest decide to 
test their future releases on and how that squares with other people's 
expectations is a question for them, assuming someone steps up to the 
task, of course.

What took place in the past when Red Hat took over leadership of update 
releases of 6 and 7 in OpenJDK was an immediate pruning of platforms 
that releases were tested against: from Windows, Solaris, OS X and Linux 
to just Linux.

If a potential new maintainer for the jdk9u forest decided to adopt a 
similar approach to re-focusing their platform coverage, I would not be 
surprised if future jdk9u releases wouldn't build or work on platforms 
the next set of maintainers didn't chose to build and test on, either.

But even if they did test their future release on all possible 
platforms, a source code release could fail to build downstream using a 
different, newer (or older) GCC version, a different version of a native 
library, etc.

In short, someone is likely always going to be able to claim that a 
given release is broken for them in one way or another. They can then 
use the push approval process to contribute the corresponding changes back.

> I find they are roughly similar for searching. Maybe you need a better
> mail client if not?

Indeed, I don't doubt that local search in your e-mail client works as 
well as in mine ;)

But I am not aware of a mail client that lets me easily share a URL to a 
search of approved push requests like JBS does: 
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/issues/?jql=labels%20%3D%209-critical-approved%20ORDER%20BY%20updated%20DESC 
.

As with so many other things, it's the ability to share results that 
makes all the difference. ;)

> Well, it shows a couple of comments from Severin that would be the equivalent
> of an initial e-mail to the list. My concern is the lack of the part
> after that; there's
> no indication of who approved it or why.

You need to go to the history tab to see who modified an issue in what 
way and when they did so.

> Being an approval, that may be a bad example. Is there a case where an issue
> was rejected with some explanation? 

I'm not aware of a rejected push approval for jdk9u so far. I do agree 
that rejection should come with an explanation, though.

cheers,
dalibor topic

-- 
<http://www.oracle.com> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager
Phone: +494089091214 <tel:+494089091214> | Mobile: +491737185961
<tel:+491737185961>

ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Kühnehöfe 5 | 22761 Hamburg

ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG
Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 München
Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRA 95603

Komplementärin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V.
Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande
Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697
Geschäftsführer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher

<http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing
practices and products that help protect the environment