[11u] RFR 8235183: Remove the "HACK CODE" in comment

[Langer, Christoph]

Hi,

> I can't guess why Oracle chose to backport this comment-only change,
> but I believe that 11u is about fixing *significant* bugs, by which I
> mean significant to *users*. Last year Aleksey Shipilev made the point
> (rather forcefully!) that maintainers should still be able to reject
> patches even if Oracle approved them. I suspect that the reason for
> his reasoning was if Oracle decide to jump off a cliff, we shouldn't
> jump with them. That isn't the case here, though: this patch is
> harmless.

Just in case you hadn't been aware of it, we do reject/ignore some things that Oracle did. If you query for the label "openjdk-na" in JBS you'll find quite a bunch of items that don't apply to OpenJDK and won't show up in our stats. At the moment the count of this list is 64.

There are also changes like https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8232569 (Use test image from different jib profile for testing), where the change could apply to OpenJDK source code but we chose not to take it since the file that was edited there is only used in Oracle infrastructure.

> As has been pointed out, this is almost a zero-risk patch in that it
> does nothing, but it's also a zero-gain patch in that it does nothing.
> On the other hand it might mess up our statistics because there will
> appear to be a patch Oracle backported but we didn't, and I can see
> that will be misleading. It might even cause people to distrust us
> because we're not fixing some bugs.
> 
> So I'm no longer sure. If you think it makes life easier for you to
> apply patches which only affect source code, and they have equivalent
> Oracle backports, go ahead. But let's not do so otherwise.

OK, so, given that it's

a) harmless though effectless
b) we've always backported these kind of patches so far
and
c) backport work is done & reviewed,

I'll admit that backport.

Thanks and best regards
Christoph