[8u communication] JDK 8 Updates porting process

[Seán Coffey]

The x-pool style version has a logical relationship with hgupdater and 
makes bug management easier. A 9-pool fixVersion will get converted to 
the correct fixVersion once hgupdater detects a push to a JDK 9 based 
forest. For that reason, l'd prefer to keep '9-pool'. I don't expect 
many of these exceptions and the OpenJDK maintainers can monitor the 
pending ports.

I haven't heard any objections to the proposed change. I'll make an edit 
to the JDK 8 Updates ground rules page to reflect this change.

regards,
Sean.

On 25/03/2017 15:16, Philip Race wrote:
> Could we use 9-bp instead of 9-pool ?
> 9-bp strikes a bit more urgency without identifying a release.
>
> X-pool has traditionally been the Sargasso Sea of releases
>
> -phil.
>
> On 3/25/17, 3:20 AM, Seán Coffey wrote:
>> With JDK 9 now entering the RDP2 phase, the bar for getting fixes 
>> into that release is high. A current requirement for JDK 8u fixes is 
>> ensuring that the changes are integrated into later JDK release 
>> families first [Rule 1, [1]]. If jdk8u ports are being blocked 
>> because of this, please let the JDK 8 Update Project maintainers know.
>>
>> While we wait for the JDK 9 Updates Project to form, I'd like to 
>> propose that we allow ports from JDK 10 into JDK 8 Updates where 
>> needed. We can open a '9-pool' record to track the JDK 9 port. I'll 
>> make the proposed change to the JDK 8 Updates rules next Friday if no 
>> objections are heard.
>>
>> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/groundrules.html
>>