This (and other) bug updates are incorrect.

[Aleksey Shipilev]

On 4/25/19 8:13 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>> Sorry Aleksey. Version value '8' historically means JDK8-GA. It should
>> only used used for bugs that reproduce with JDK8-GA. If the OpenJDK8u
>> project wants to add an '8u' that means some version after JDK8-GA, then
>> that is fine.

My problem with "historically" is that it is very open to interpretation. What you are saying
implies that every bug that has affectedVersion = 8 is checked to be reproduce-able with 8 GA. Which
does not ring true, since submitters usually check only with the some current version of 8u, and I
see that "8" serves as blanket "some (presumably latest) version of 8" designator for many recent
issues.

That's how people use it today, no matter the history. I think that is a fair compromise: if you
know the exact version the issue appeared in, put in the exact version. But if you don't, you are
not pressured to figure it out, put the blanket major version, and move on. Having both does not
look incorrect.

If using 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 as blanket designators is incorrect, then it is incorrect in many places
around JBS, and you have to go and say it somewhere, *and* provide consistent replacements for all
of them. Changing it only for 8u does not bring any added consistency. The closest alternative I can
see is 7-pool, 8-pool, 11-pool, 12-pool, 13-pool, etc, but I don't know their exact meaning.

> Another way to think about is this:
> 
> We're having this conversation on the jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net alias.
> We are not having this conversation on the jdk8-dev at openjdk.java.net alias.
> 
> Why? Because the OpenJDK8 project is done. We now have an OpenJDK8u project...

That's a weird argument, to be honest. By that argument, we have to have 11u, 12u, etc as JIRA
versions, which we don't.

-Aleksey