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

[Seán Coffey]

The trend has been to include a pointer to code review for any fix being 
made in the JDK 8 Updates Project. The push approval request template 
does outline it as a requirement. We can clarify this point to indicate 
that where an identical patch is being backported, then a pointer to the 
original code review should be included.

The template and JDK 8 Updates ground rules need updating in any case. 
References are made to a fix being required in JDK 9 before being ported 
to JDK 8 Updates. With the new JDK release model, this is no longer a 
requirement. I'll submit suggested changes in a new mail thread shortly.

regards,
Sean.

On 22/02/2018 03:50, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> 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.
>