[ping]: Timeline for 11.0.4 development

[Lindenmaier, Goetz]

Hi,

Any further comments on this?  Should we put these dates
on the wiki page?
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk-updates-dev/2019-April/000866.html

to repeate my initial mail:

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.

Best regards,
  Goetz.



> The dates I proposed here:
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk-updates-dev/2019-
> April/000866.html
> seem to have basic consensus.
> I took your mail
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk-updates-dev/2019-
> April/000873.html
> as an approval so far.  Andrew Hughes and Christoph have agreed,
> too, as I understand.
> 
> Could you please, as a project lead, confirm that we
> will act upon this schedule?
> 
> Then Christoph will put it on the webpage.
> If it's on the webpage, I hope the dates get more visibility. If then
> any concerns are raised, we can still update them.
> 
> Best regards,
>   Goetz.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com>
> > Sent: Mittwoch, 3. April 2019 10:32
> > To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>; 'Andrew John
> Hughes'
> > <gnu.andrew at redhat.com>; jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net
> > Subject: Re: Timeline for 11.0.4 development
> >
> > On 4/2/19 10:09 PM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
> > > I proposed the tagging date here, and didn't get any objections:
> > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk-updates-dev/2019-
> > February/000648.html
> >
> > This has happened a couple of times now: people have posted something,
> > received no objections, and taken it as consent. That is not how
> > things work. We proceed by consensus: that is, we try to reach an
> > agreement that a substantial majority of us are happy with.
> >
> > I realize that getting people to reply can be painful, but that's the
> > only way to achieve a consensus.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Haley
> > Java Platform Lead Engineer
> > Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
> > EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671