RFD: Draft guidelines for working on jdk8u

[Andrew Haley]

On 2/8/19 10:25 AM, Langer, Christoph wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
>>> I'd like to propose that for trivial backports/changes (i.e.: typos,
>>> copyright fixes, etc.), a jdk8u reviewer approval is enough to have the
>>> patch in. In case that a reviewer is not sure about the triviality of a
>>> backport/change, other reviewers or maintainer approval may be required.
>>> This would reduce unnecessary overhead I believe.
>>
>> I'm not at all convinced that we need to use the double-review system. Once
>> people are aware of the rules, any qualified jdk8u reviewer should be able
>> to apply them.
>>
>> Having said that, we must tag the bugs chosen to be applied to 8u in the
>> bug database. I don't think I mentioned that in my posting.
> 
> You mean that we install something like a "jdk8u-fix-request"
> labeling procedure where the maintainer will approve each fix by
> "jdk8u-fix-yes" before it can be pushed to 8u, no matter how trivial
> the fix is?

I see. That does sound sensible, but perhaps we should have an
"obvious, trivial" exception, especially for the times when the build
is broken.

> Essentially the same as we handle jdk11 and higher backports? I'd be
> very much for that...

I'm not sure. I welcome further input.

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