[11u Communication] jdk11u forest

[Volker Simonis]

While I completely share Goetz's and Martin's concerns, I think these
are "just" Oracle's rules which only apply for the first two update
releases (i.e. 11.0.1 and 11.0.2). From my understanding anybody who
takes over the project lead after 11.0.2 (which might be already in
about 4 month or so) can define whatever new rules he likes for the
jdk11u project afterwards.

Regards,
Volker

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:59 AM Lindenmaier, Goetz
<goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I share the concerns about rule 3 in a LTE release.
> E.g., we would like to fix the s390 port to support
> JFR. This can not be considered a P1 bug. Another
> candidate is change "8207343: Automate vtable/itable
> stub size calculation" which fixes issues in the jdk11
> dbg build.
>
> To jdk8, a row of intrinsics were downported that
> brought significant performance gains, similar issues
> will come up with jdk11.
>
> Best regards,
>   Goetz.
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jdk-updates-dev <jdk-updates-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net> On
> > Behalf Of Martin Buchholz
> > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 1:16 AM
> > To: Rob McKenna <rob.mckenna at oracle.com>
> > Cc: jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net
> > Subject: Re: [11u Communication] jdk11u forest
> >
> > Thanks for creating jdk11u.  I'm happy it got created before jdk
> > 11.0.0 GA, so backports from jdk head already have a place to soak.
> >
> > Things I'd like to see improved:
> >
> > - Rule 3 is too restrictive. P1 is too high a bar.  It appears that
> > jdk11 will have long-term broad ecosystem support, and any backports
> > that make sense for a long lived stable release should be accepted.
> > (But how to decide whether the risk is worth the benefit?!  Humans
> > will have to make tough decisions)
> >
> > - While it is understandable that the contents of security patches
> > must be kept private, the security patches will likely be released
> > along with garden variety bug fixes in jdk11u, and so the schedule for
> > the 10.0.1 and 10.0.2 mini-trains should be public (e.g. I don't know
> > what is the deadline to get fixes into 10.0.1).
> >
> > - The process documented at
> > http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk-updates/approval.html is still
> > not as clear as I'd like.  Can backports be handled entirely without
> > needing to send emails to jdk-updates-dev?
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Rob McKenna <rob.mckenna at oracle.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I'd like to announce the availibility of the JDK 11 Updates forest at:
> > >
> > > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk-updates/jdk11u/
> > >
> > > As with JDK9u & JDK10u, this forest has been opened under the jdk-
> > updates
> > > project.
> > >
> > > As with jdk10u, once the fix has been approved [1] for inclusion in an
> > > update release and has subsequently been pushed to the open repo, a
> > backport
> > > record will be created for a specific release. (e.g. 11.0.1)
> > >
> > >     -Rob
> > >
> > > [1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk-updates/approval.html
> > >