Future jdk9u updates & 9-critical-request

[Rob McKenna]

Yep, this is something we've been thinking about. The proposal hasn't
quite been finalized but the idea is to provide a way to avoid the
heavyweight process of creating new projects for each train, instead
we would adapt the JDK8u maintainer delegation process [1] to fit the bill.
(we would have the option of forest specific co-maintainers and sub-rules)

    -Rob

[1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/maintainer-template.html

On 30/01/18 17:41, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> On 29 January 2018 at 23:28, Volker Simonis <volker.simonis at gmail.com> wrote:
> > There's also another important point that needs to be considered here.
> > Until now, every release had it's own update project with own project
> > lead and infrastructure. Whenever Oracle lost its interest in updating
> > a Java version, it generously transferred the project responsibility
> > to the community (and thankfully RedHat and Azul have taken over this
> > responsibility for OpenJDK 6 & 7).
> >
> > With Java 9, things have changed. There's only one generic update
> > project for all future updates and I doubt Oracle will transfer
> > ownership of that project to the community. So even if Andrew doesn't
> > mind to "be jdk9u lead for 10 minutes" it won't even be possible to
> > realize that, simply because there is neither a jdk9u project nor a
> > jdk9u project lead. This is unfortunate, because now, even if Oracle
> > looses interest in a release, like for example OpenJDK 9, there's no
> > easy way for the community to step in and run these updates according
> > to their rules.
> >
> > So maybe we really need to rethink the jdk updates project and how it works.
> >
> > Needless to say that a working "Vulnerability Group" is key for any
> > kind of setup with community involvement!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Volker
> >
> >
> 
> Very good point, and one which is going to become a bigger issue once
> we reach the first LTS release, OpenJDK 11, as that will need to be
> worked on in parallel with 12 through to 16, and it's more likely that someone
> else will want to maintain that version past OpenJDK 17 (i.e. > 3 years)
> -- 
> Andrew :)
> 
> Senior Free Java Software Engineer
> Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
> 
> Web Site: http://fuseyism.com
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java
> PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
> Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04  C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222