Future jdk9u updates & 9-critical-request

Rob McKenna rob.mckenna at oracle.com
Thu Jan 25 18:17:00 UTC 2018

Hi Andrew

This is the first time we've encountered this situation so my apologies
for any alarm caused. On reflection I should have been more proactive
about explicitly seeking out a new maintainer for JDK 9 Updates.

As Dalibor notes [1] we would welcome a suitable party who wished to
step forward to maintain future 9 Updates. My reluctance to approve these
particular requests was to avoid pre-empting decisions made by that new

I'll send out a proposal shortly on how we can handle the maintenance of
such releases in the future.


[1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk-updates-dev/2017-November/000024.html

On 25/01/18 17:31, Andrew Haley wrote:
> 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.
> Sure, I understand that it wasn't deliberate.  However, the
> immediate tagging and tying-off of the branch was.
> > This may be something that the establishment of the vulnerabilities 
> > group will help with.
> That is surely true.
> > Alternatively maybe the JDK Update maintainers could just approve
> > the changes needed to get the ports aligned and leave it at that.
> That would be nice.
> > If someone steps up to maintain the JDK 9 updates going forward then
> > they could tag a new release that includes the changes.
> Well, I could formally take over the project, but it seems a bit
> excessive.  I'll do that if it's the only way to get it done.
> -- 
> Andrew Haley
> Java Platform Lead Engineer
> Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
> EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671

More information about the jdk-updates-dev mailing list