Future jdk9u updates & 9-critical-request

[Andrew Dinn]

On 25/01/18 17:28, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 25/01/2018 16:46, Andrew Haley wrote
>> :
>> This is ridiculously hostile behaviour: to break a bunch of things
>> in OpenJDK, do a release, and then immediately drop the project
>> on the floor before giving anyone a chance to fix what is broken.
>> Really, I would have expected better than this.
>>
>> I guess I'll have to be the project maintainer for long enough to
>> commit the necessary fixes so that jdk9u works for all ports, not
>> just the ones that Oracle ships.
>>
> I don't think anyone deliberately broke anything. I think it's just that
> 9.0.4 was a security release so the changes couldn't bake in
> jdk-updates/jdk9u.

No, of course it was not deliberate breakage. The deliberate action we
are concerned about would be simply walking away from the mess afterwards.

> This may be something that the establishment of the vulnerabilities
> group will help with. Alternatively maybe the JDK Update maintainers
> could just approve the changes needed to get the ports aligned and leave
> it at that. If someone steps up to maintain the JDK 9 updates going
> forward then they could tag a new release that includes the changes.
Well, of course, this is a poster-child level argument for getting the
vulnerabilities group sorted out asap. But that's a secondary question
right now. The important question still remains what to do about a tree
that has been left in a half-baked state. I think it would make a great
deal of sense for the existing patches which are known to resolve the
problem to be pushed to the current tree.

regards,


Andrew Dinn
-----------
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd
Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill, Eric Shander