How to handle future backports from JDK 10 into JDK 9?

[Joseph D. Darcy]

Hi David,

On 2/16/2017 2:11 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> On 17/02/2017 6:01 AM, joe darcy wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir,
>>
>> If the HotSpot team is concerned matching bug id and summaries, I
>> suggest using a wrapper script around jprt or hg push that does that
>> check. I know various individuals have written such scripts for their
>> own use; probably a case where we could do a better job sharing small
>> tools.
>
> That's solving the problem in the wrong place in my opinion.

The designers of jcheck made an architectural decision to not have 
jcheck depend on or use the bug database.

Without revisiting that design decision, a wrapper script of some sort 
is a way the check in question could be implemented today.

>
>> In my estimation, using back port bug ids for pushes would be more prone
>> to errors/typos than continuing the long-standing policy of using the
>> main bug id in such cases.
>
> That wasn't the suggestion. The suggestion was to create a new bug eg 
> "Backport 8134567 to JDK 9" and use that bugid for the "backport" 
> instead of creating an actual backport-issue using the original main 
> bug id.
>

That approach, while workable, seems to me to work across purposes with 
the bug tracking system. The most natural way to represent a backport is 
a backport issue.

-Joe