[7u communication] Changes to JDK 7u10 plans

[Andrew Hughes]

----- Original Message -----
> Why not create a specific branch corresponding to Java 7u10 with same
> OSS contents when Java 7u10 will be release ?
> 
> So all packagers could produce their OpenJDK based Java on a known
> code base.
> 

That's exactly what I'm asking.

Either u10 only has changes to the proprietary JDK code, or it contains OpenJDK changes but for some reason
they are not be put in a separate branch.  It isn't clear to me which of these is true.

> Le 9 oct. 2012 à 16:30, Andrew Hughes <gnu.andrew at redhat.com> a écrit
> :
> 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> On 10/3/12 11:18 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> >>> So, are you now saying there *may* be some fixes in the
> >>> proprietary
> >>> u10 release
> >>> which are applicable to OpenJDK?
> >> 
> >> No. I don't speculate about the content of future non-OpenJDK
> >> releases, regardless
> >> whether they are from Oracle, IcedTea, etc. Despite my good looks,
> >> I
> >> can't predict
> >> the future, so I don't even bother trying.
> > 
> > I'm  not asking you to speculate, but responding to this statement
> > from your earlier e-mail:
> > 
> > "I would expect Oracle's JDK 7u10 release to have release notes,
> > with a list of fixes, so that once it's released you
> > could pull the corresponding chagesets out of jdk7u-dev"
> > 
> > In the event that there are changesets in both the proprietary u10
> > and jdk7u-dev, why is there no
> > 7u10 branch of 7u?  The earlier e-mail would appear to complete
> > rule this out.
> > 
> >> Typically downstream Projects based off 7u end up using the source
> >> code in 7u as the
> >> basis and, if they are in the mood for it, adding changes of their
> >> own to it.
> >> 
> >> A good example is IcedTea, which in a typical release (see
> >> http://markmail.org/message/st2d3zjccucgz6tb)
> >> will include additional fixes that take it "beyond" a particular
> >> 7u
> >> forest it was
> >> based off. It's impossible for me to predict which fixes, if any,
> >> those would be
> >> ahead of time, since the decisions about their inclusion into
> >> IcedTea
> >> are not made
> >> here, they are made  downstream, in the IcedTea Project. And
> >> that's
> >> fine, too. It
> >> also is true for any downstream.
> > 
> > Yes, as the maintainer, I'm aware of how IcedTea works.
> > It's also not so much a case of "being in the mood for it" as
> > OpenJDK
> > as is still being in an unpackageable state.
> > 
> > We're working towards making OpenJDK itself usable at which point
> > we'd
> > want to dispense with IcedTea as an interim layer.  This will be
> > impossible
> > if 7u does not have a sane release system with trees for all
> > releases, including
> > security updates.
> > 
> > This benefits 7u as well as it means we're working on it with you,
> > rather than just
> > cleaning up regressions afterwards.
> > 
> >> Which brings us back to your initial question - what the IcedTea
> >> release corresponding
> >> to 7u11 could be based on. One option is a future IcedTea release
> >> corresponding to 7u9.
> >> Another option is 7u-dev, as you mentioned yourself. Another
> >> option
> >> is to cherry-pick
> >> fixes from jdk7u-dev that you care about. And so on - I'm sure you
> >> can come up with more.
> >> I don't know which option is best for IcedTea. I would, though, if
> >> in
> >> doubt, go for
> >> whichever seems to be the lowest risk one in the context of
> >> IcedTea.
> >> 
> >>> Also, why aren't there trees for e.g. u3, u5, etc. (the security
> >>> CPUs)?
> >> 
> >> I'll quote from this Project's Q&A web page:
> >> 
> >> "As with OpenJDK 6, security fixes are first kept confidential and
> >> applied to a private
> >> forest before being pushed to the public forest as part of the
> >> general synchronized
> >> publication of the fix to affected JDK release trains."
> > 
> > That doesn't answer the question which is why said "public forest"
> > has to
> > be 7u HEAD and can't be a specific branch of 7u.  Pushing the
> > security fixes
> > to an e.g. 7u9 tree would be little more trouble, especially as I
> > presume Oracle
> > security updates for u9 aren't based on random snapshots of 7u10
> > development, but
> > something more stable.
> > 
> >>> This gives the impression that 7u is not meant for direct use,
> >>> but
> >>> only as a basis
> >>> for something else like IcedTea, if we're going to have releases
> >>> with no applicable
> >>> tree, or even tag, and security fixes are applied to a mid-stream
> >>> feature release.
> >> 
> >> That depends on the point of view. We don't publish binaries, so
> >> from
> >> one point of view,
> >> there is nothing you can use directly - you need to build your own
> >> binaries, or find a
> >> downstream that does that for you, like Oracle JDK. From another
> >> point of view, the
> >> releases created by this Project are well usable on its own, once
> >> you've ran make (and I'm
> >> a happy user). From yet another point of view, that's not
> >> something
> >> you'd want to run as
> >> a a non-technical user, because it lacks additional features like
> >> plugin, web start, etc.
> >> 
> >> So, in practice, it depends on one's perspective. I would expect
> >> most
> >> users of 7u to run
> >> a binary published downstream, though.
> > 
> > I'm not talking about users so much as having a source release that
> > distros
> > can take and build, just like about every other FOSS project.
> > 
> >>> I'd really like to see a situation where, for all releases, there
> >>> is a specific point
> >>> on a specific tree that can be used to download the source for
> >>> that
> >>> release, as in most
> >>> other FOSS projects.
> >> 
> >> We already provide that for releases developed in this Project.
> >> See
> >> http://jdk7.java.net/source.html
> >> for the links for 7u6, which was the last release developed in
> >> this
> >> Project.
> > 
> > This only lists u6.  There is nothing at all for e.g. u5.
> > 
> >> cheers,
> >> dalibor topic
> >> --
> >> Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
> >> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager
> >> Phone: +494089091214 <tel:+494089091214> | Mobile: +491737185961
> >> <tel:+491737185961>
> >> Oracle Java Platform Group
> >> 
> >> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Kühnehöfe 5 | 22761 Hamburg
> >> 
> >> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG
> >> Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 München
> >> Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRA 95603
> >> Geschäftsführer: Jürgen Kunz
> >> 
> >> Komplementärin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V.
> >> Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande
> >> Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697
> >> Geschäftsführer: Alexander van der Ven, Astrid Kepper, Val Maher
> >> 
> >> Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is
> >> committed
> >> to developing practices and products that help protect the
> >> environment
> > 
> > --
> > Andrew :)
> > 
> > Free Java Software Engineer
> > Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
> > 
> > PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
> > Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F  8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07
> > 
> 

-- 
Andrew :)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F  8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07