Changes to 8u and 11u process

[Andrew Haley]

On 8/7/19 4:36 AM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:

> I would point out that the decisions made by Oracle for their
> proprietary fork are opaque to us, and so to do as proposed would be
> to essentially hand control of the majority of our work to a black
> box. I am vehemently of the opinion that the OpenJDK projects should
> remain independent of such proprietary forks.

Everybody's vehement today. :-)

It's not in the best interests of Free Software that we diverge
significantly from Oracle because we must maintain an easy path from
closed to open. Sure, we can add features like, say, Shenandoah, but
we shouldn't miss any. So, decisions about whether to accept a
backport that Oracle has already accepted are going to be pretty much
automatic.

While it'd be nice if we were the masters of all we survey, it's not
going to happen: better that we accept or place in all of this, which
is to do our part to help the masses reach the sunlit uplands of freedom.

-- 
Andrew Haley  (he/him)
Java Platform Lead Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
https://keybase.io/andrewhaley
EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671