JDK-8217305, JDK-8209002 and fixes

[Aleksey Shipilev]

On 3/11/19 7:20 PM, Kevin Walls wrote:
> Paul I was pleased to see your keyword addition, and the approval.  I didn't quite know if it meant
> you were taking the change I mentioned and getting it into the open 8u-dev (you're probably aware
> that in 8u with these build ones, we make the .m4 change, then run autogen.sh to regenerated
> generated-autoconfigure.sh, pushing both).  If you are, that's great.  If you aren't, I'll do it as
> I have it in my head, and it appears to be approved. 8-)

I think you can do it, Kevin!

The 8u push approval (jdk8u-fix-yes tag) is there, so the fix can be pushed to jdk8u/jdk8u-dev.
There are two little deviations from the process. These two things should have happened before push
approval was there:
  a) "Fix Request" comment should be present in 8217305 describing what this patch is about, what
testing was done, and what are the risks;
  b) Public RFR should be present for 8217305, given it is not a backport, but rather a new change
in 8u;

All that is nominally needed for maintainer to set jdk8u-fix-yes for the request, but that had
already happened. We might want to put pro-forma "Fix Request" [1] and pro-forma RFR on this list
[2] to make history look good if we even need to come back to this issue, and also for somebody to
eyeball the fix before pushing.

-Aleksey

[1] Example: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8211382?focusedCommentId=14247397#comment-14247397
[2] Example: https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2019-February/008684.html