[11u] Sconpe of Review ... was RFR(S): 8241234: Unify monitor enter/exit runtime entries.

[Andrew Dinn]

Hi Goetz,

On 11/09/2020 07:05, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:

> Sorry I didn't mean to offend you.

Of course. I never thought otherwise and I certainly was not offended by
anything you said.

> But this thread is about optimizing the rules for 
> changes Oracle downported to 11.  The majority of
> these changes are not reviewed.  See the example
> I assembled below.
> So I just wanted to point to the existing rules, which 
> say the maintainer must judge the risk. This is a 
> mandatory step in the process.  A review is not
> mandatory.
> 
> Obviously, any useful input is welcome to make 
> the decision of the maintainer more easy, or to 
> spot overseen risks.

I was not clear that this was your original position, specifically
because of these words:

"It is pointless to ask reviewers to judge the risk . . ."

"Judging the risk is clearly a thing of the downporter. This is
formulated in Rule 1 of Oracles's Updates . . ."

It seems we are both in agreement that downporters, reviewers and
maintainers all have a part to play and that any doubt is best addressed
through open discussion an negotiation.

> The point of this discussion here is under which 
> criteria Oracle changes should not be downported, see 
> also Andrew H's last post:
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk-updates-dev/2020-September/003785.html

Yes, I understood that.

regards,


Andrew Dinn
-----------
Red Hat Distinguished Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd
Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill