[RFA] JDK-8194739 Zero port of 8174962: Better interface invocations

[Andrew Hughes]

On 21 February 2018 at 07:53, David Buck <david.buck at oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrew!
>
> Perhaps we can make the RFA template clearer. I will bring this up with the other maintainers.
>
> While there may be examples where this rule was not strictly enforced in the past, every RFA should include a link to any available public review. It is not so much to “prove” that they original change was properly reviewed, but to make it as easy and as quick as possible for everyone involved to find and review any technical discussion around the original fix that might be of concern to back porting the fix. (For example, code reviews often include discussion of any risk posed by the change.) The idea is to make it easier to find this information. When the list is very active / busy, the time saved trying to hunt down each review thread can really add up.
>

Yes, my issue was more with the template than about being asked for
the information.
I would have gladly provided it from the start if I'd been prompted to do so.

I agree it's very useful to read through the original review and see
how the patch
was developed and why certain choices were made. My worry about the move to
using the bug system rather than a mailing list with future updates is
that the same
discussion doesn't really occur there and what is posted is to a
smaller audience
who are aware of that bug.

> BTW, thank you for fixing this issue in JDK 8. I am relived to hear that Zero is building again.
>

No problem. I actually found another issue which needs fixing as well.
I'll post that
in a separate thread.

> Cheers,
> -Buck
>

Cheers,
-- 
Andrew :)

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

Web Site: http://fuseyism.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/gnu_andrew_java
PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04  C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222