Heads-up: JDK-8230085 and MacOS Catalina

[Lindenmaier, Goetz]

Hi,

the change touches only mac files, except for removal of a 'private'
from a method.  So it should not break any other platform. 
Catalina is to be released in October: https://www.apple.com/macos/catalina/
If we deliver the fix only in January, people have to 
deal with the issue until then.  Thus I would not object against 
pushing this to 11.0.5.

The only thing I'm not aware of is the importance of this fix. 
Does isReadOnly() being true imply that you can not write to 
any file any more? This would make 11.0.5 unusable on Catalina.
Or is this just an interface rarely used?

Best regards,
  Goetz





> -----Original Message-----
> From: jdk-updates-dev <jdk-updates-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net> On
> Behalf Of Langer, Christoph
> Sent: Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 11:19
> To: Simon Tooke <stooke at redhat.com>; Andrew John Hughes
> <gnu.andrew at redhat.com>; jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net; Aleksey
> Shipilev <shade at redhat.com>; Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com>
> Subject: [CAUTION] RE: Heads-up: JDK-8230085 and MacOS Catalina
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I can see that Oracle has backported the change to their January update
> branches just last night. I'll ask if they have any plans to ship this already with
> the October patches.
> 
> Independent of that, I think we can decide for the OpenJDK releases to have it
> already in October. What do people think? (Looping in aph...)
> 
> Best regards
> Christoph
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jdk-updates-dev <jdk-updates-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net> On
> > Behalf Of Simon Tooke
> > Sent: Mittwoch, 18. September 2019 19:11
> > To: Andrew John Hughes <gnu.andrew at redhat.com>; jdk-updates-
> > dev at openjdk.java.net; Aleksey Shipilev <shade at redhat.com>
> > Subject: Re: Heads-up: JDK-8230085 and MacOS Catalina
> >
> >
> > On 9/17/2019 4:54 PM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> > >
> > > On 17/09/2019 20:13, Simon Tooke wrote:
> > >> On 9/16/2019 10:08 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> > >>> On 9/16/19 4:04 PM, Langer, Christoph wrote:
> > >>>> does tck-red mean, there are issues with current TCK? In other words,
> > it can't just simply be
> > >>>> backported before TCK has been adapted?
> > >>> https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/HotSpot/JBS+Label+Dictionary
> > says: "tck-red-(Rel): Used to
> > >>> identify TCK conformance stoppers (e.g. failure of a valid TCK test that
> > exists in a shipped TCK)."
> > >>>
> > >>> From this and issue description it sounds like it is legit TCK failure on
> > Catalina.
> > >> I've now tested the fix on jdk8u and 11u on a Catalina beta, with success.
> > >>
> > >> I've applied jdk8u-fix-request and jdk11u-fix-request labels, but if
> > >> they are critical (not my call) then the labels should be changed
> > >> accordingly.
> > >>
> > >> -Simon
> > >>
> > > If you want to request critical, you need to use the *-critical-request
> > > labels and make the case for it on the bug. In the event the issue is
> > > rejected for critical, you can always then apply for *-fix-request instead.
> > >
> > > Hope that helps,
> >
> > Sure, I'll do that.  I noticed that Christoph has already decided it's
> > not critical for 11u, though, so I won't be surprised if it gets rejected.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -simon
> >