Backports to jdk7u / was : (Re: Request for approval:7151427: Fix the potential memory leak in error handling code in X11SurfaceData.c)

[Joe Darcy]

Hello,

While it is certainly true in the limit that effort on JDK 7 update 
should be reduced to focus on JDK 8 and other future releases, my own 
estimation is that we are still in the phase of the lifetime of JDK 7 
train where it is sensible and prudent to accept proactive fixes into 
the release, especially through a low-overhead process like the one now 
being used for 7 updates.

Cheers,

-Joe

On 9/18/2012 11:09 AM, Phil Race wrote:
> Every fix adds risk. And some things don't add enough value to make 7u 
> detectably better.
> Some fixes may be low risk but add minimal value.
> The focus for making things better needs to be JDK 8.
>
> -phil.
>
> On 9/18/2012 11:03 AM, Seán Coffey wrote:
>> Phil -
>>
>> This fix has soaked in jdk8 for ~5 months. It was initially 
>> contributed by Sean Chou who has an interest in jdk7u. Why can't it 
>> be backported if he's willing to make JDK7u better ?
>>
>> I'm not getting your argument around us needing to ramp down 7u 
>> fixes. If folks want to contribute tried and tested fixes to jdk7u 
>> which would appear low risk, then isn't it a win, win for all JDK 
>> users ? Yes, there are risks to each fix but we have a large number 
>> of tests run for each update release.
>>
>> jdk7u is going to be around for many years to come. It's by no means 
>> a product which we need to start decreasing fixes on in my view! 
>> Fixing in jdk8 is also a requirement for jdk7u integration.
>>
>> I do see validity in your point around deciding risk assessment of 
>> backports. It's possibly something that we need to scrutinize more ? 
>> That brings more work for reviewers of course.
>>
>> regards,
>> Sean.
>>
>> On 18/09/2012 18:44, Phil Race wrote:
>>> Actually this clearly falls into the 'not remotely important enough 
>>> to backport' bucket.
>>> So I would not approve this backport.
>>>
>>> -phil.
>>>
>>> On 9/18/12 10:39 AM, Seán Coffey wrote:
>>>> Approved for jdk7u-dev.  Note that this most likely means the fix 
>>>> will end up in 7u12. If there's a strong justification for 7u10 
>>>> inclusion, let me know and one of the jdk7u maintainers can help 
>>>> you work through a phase2 request[1] for 7u10.
>>>>
>>>> I'll create a bug record to track this fix in jdk7u.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Sean.
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7u/phase2/phase2-process.html
>>>>
>>>> On 14/09/2012 09:55, Sean Chou wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's a request of porting fix 7151427 back to JDK7, could you 
>>>>> please help
>>>>> to review?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bug: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7151427
>>>>>
>>>>> Change set: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/2d/jdk/rev/b1af41b86f9f
>>>>>
>>>>> Thread where it was reviewed:
>>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2012-March/002403.html
>>>>> *
>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>