...

[Mario Torre]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 5:22 PM Gil Tene <gil at azul.com> wrote:

> Mario, it is pretty rich for an IBM / Red Hat employee to be (repeatedly)
> using this nefarious “conflict of interest” argument to question the
> motivation of people rather than arguing on the technical merits.
>
> Please stop.

Gil, I'm sorry from all the things I wrote you picked this one line,
my intention is to explain why the discussion needs to steer on the
technical matter and not imply any one is promoting a self interest, I
hope you realise this. Btw, I'm not sure who else said this
"repeatedly"? Anyway.

> And I know you won’t find me claiming that repeatedly on this list.

It wouldn't be appropriate, not just because all of our code is open
sourced and anyone can use it in their downstreams (and people do,
it's the case, for example, in CentOS or Fedora and other commercial
derivatives), but also because we are talking about OpenJDK here.

> For an updates project, this is what technical (and not at all theoretical)
> perspectives look like.

You bring the experience of one group and claim it's universally valid
across all groups of users. We will never make everyone happy, but we
can bring the reasoning on the specific merit of the patch instead of
universally rule things out just because one player of this community
doesn't accept it.

You can still disable Shenandoah in your build setup and will be like
it was never there in the first place. After all, OpenJDK doesn't
really do binary distributions, so how a user consumes the JDK is
really via downstream vendors.

Cheers,
Mario

-- 
Mario Torre
Associate Manager, Software Engineering
Red Hat GmbH <https://www.redhat.com>
9704 A60C B4BE A8B8 0F30  9205 5D7E 4952 3F65 7898