[jdk-updates-communication] Push approval rule changes

[Rob McKenna]

Hi Andrew,

Good question. In general we consider a P1 to be a critical issue for
which there is no workaround. (a reproducible crash or hang for example)

We accept that priority is in the eye of the beholder however and so the
final decision will rest with the group lead.

In addition to P1's & serious regressions we have come up with a list of
issue types which we will readily accept into a jdk-update:

- CPU merges
- TZUpdater changes
- Test fixes
- Changes to Root CACerts
- Changes to the build number
- Fixes specific to downstream builders' projects

A few entries on this list were added as a result of some recent
approval requests and there may be others we haven't considered yet.
(I'll get these documented on the project page)

For reference, here is a list of P1's from the JDK 10 project:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20JDK%20and%20fixVersion%20in%20(10)%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20fixed%20and%20(labels%20is%20empty%20or%20labels%20!%3D%20hgupdate-sync)%20and%20priority%20%3D%20P1%20and%20level%20is%20EMPTY

    -Rob

On 28/04/18 05:15, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> On 26 April 2018 at 16:23, Rob McKenna <rob.mckenna at oracle.com> wrote:
> > A number of push approval requests have been filed which do not obviously
> > meet the criteria laid out in the push approval project page. [1] I.e.
> > that they are:
> >
> > - P1 bug, or
> > - A serious regression which needs fixing ASAP
> >
> 
> What is the criteria for a "P1" bug and who determines whether it is classified
> as such?
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> 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