Timeline for 11.0.4 development

[Lindenmaier, Goetz]

Hi Christoph, 

the earlier we branch off, the earlier we can push a bit more risky 
changes to jdk11u-dev.
Like downporting "JEP 344-Abortable Mixed Collections for G1 to jdk11u"

We could push such a change an May 1 to jdk11u-dev, and it would 
be delivered on Oct. 15.
If we branch off on May 29, this gives us 4 weeks less.

As it's not RDP2, we could still push acceptable changes
to jdk11u.

Also, jdk11u would be "closed" for 6 weeks, giving
lots of chances for wrong pushes :)

Best regards,
  Goetz.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Langer, Christoph
> Sent: Dienstag, 2. April 2019 13:01
> To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>; jdk-updates-
> dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: RE: Timeline for 11.0.4 development
> 
> Hi Goetz,
> 
> > I propose to explicitly state the following dates on
> > https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/JDKUpdates/JDK11u
> >
> > As for 11.0.3, I can do the builds, tests and tags proposed here until RC
> phase.
> > JDK 11.0.4 timeline
> >
> >   *   March 2019 jdk11u-dev forest open
> >   *   Tuesday, April 30: Branch jdk11u-dev to jdk11u
> >   *   Wednesday, Mai 1 2019: Tag 11.0.4+1
> >   *   Wendesday, Mai 29 2019: Tag 11.0.4+5 RDP2
> >   *   Wednesday June 26 2019: Tag 11.0.4+9 RC phase (code freeze)
> >   *   Mid July 2019 GA
> >
> > JDK 11.0.5 timeline
> >
> >   *   Wednesday, Mai 1 2019 Tag 11.0.5+0 in jdk11u-dev, Forest open for
> > development.
> 
> I like explicitly stating concrete days for cutoff and tagging to avoid situations
> like we currently have in jdk11u.
> 
> I however think we should do the jdk11u-dev to jdk11u branching on May 29,
> 2019. Then we have 6 weeks for RDP which should be enough.
> 
> Maybe we shouldn't stick to this RDP2 term in the context of jdk11u, anyway.
> We should have 3 phases:
> 
> 1. When release is still in jdk11u-dev
> 2. RDP (Ramp down phase) - after the branch jdk11u-dev -> jdk11u happened
> (e.g. 6 weeks before GA)
> 3. CPU Freeze - e.g. 2 weeks before GA
> 
> Furthermore, I think we should only tag a new build if we have had changes
> compared to the last tag. It's of no use to have a tag following another in a
> repo if nothing happened.
> 
> So, we also shouldn't announce build numbers beforehand.
> 
> Best regards
> Christoph