RFR for backport of JDK-8034773 : (zipfs) newOutputstream uses CREATE_NEW when no options specified

[Andrew John Hughes]

On 08/01/2020 15:11, Langer, Christoph wrote:
> Hi Andrew or Severin,
> 
> quick ping: Could you approve this item? I think it's a clean backport and I've reviewed Jaikiran's work already... It's running nightly in our testing.
> 
> Thanks
> Christoph
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Langer, Christoph
>> Sent: Dienstag, 12. November 2019 14:44
>> To: 'Jaikiran Pai' <jai.forums2013 at gmail.com>; jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> Subject: RE: RFR for backport of JDK-8034773 : (zipfs) newOutputstream uses
>> CREATE_NEW when no options specified
>>
>> Hi Jaikiran,
>>
>> I have updated the backport:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8034773.8u.0/.
>>
>> I restored the original copyright header changes and the author/reviewer
>> attributions which conforms to what's usually done in backports. Once we
>> have approval, this is what I'll push.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Christoph
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jaikiran Pai <jai.forums2013 at gmail.com>
>>> Sent: Samstag, 2. November 2019 13:18
>>> To: Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>; jdk8u-
>>> dev at openjdk.java.net
>>> Subject: Re: RFR for backport of JDK-8034773 : (zipfs) newOutputstream
>> uses
>>> CREATE_NEW when no options specified
>>>
>>> Thank you Christoph.
>>>
>>> On 29/10/19 1:54 PM, Langer, Christoph wrote:
>>>> Hi Jaikiran,
>>>>
>>>> the backport looks good to me. I can sponsor it, once we get the approval
>>> label.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing, I don't have to do anything specific to request it and it
>>> will be handled in due course?
>>>
>>> -Jaikiran
> 

Patch looks ok to me and I've added jdk8u-fix-yes to both bugs.

As regards author/reviewer credits, I think you did the right thing here
in retaining the originals, as there are no code change, though I'd also
add the two of us as reviewers.

However, where the backport does require code changes, I would credit
the backporter instead. Likewise, I'd start with a clean list of
reviewers, so as to only include those who've reviewed the backported patch.

The reason I say this is because the original credits are still present
in the original changeset, but otherwise the backporter is never
credited for their work. As to reviewers, I don't think it's fair to
claim someone has reviewed a patch they may well not even know exists.
I know that if someone did a bad backport of a patch for which I'd
reviewed the original, I'd be a little annoyed at the bad backport
claiming to have been reviewed by me, when I'd never seen it.

Just something I've been mulling over while reviewing and approving so
many patches recently. Incidentally, I have one pending for 11u if you
like to review that in turn:

https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk-updates-dev/2020-January/002349.html

It's similar to this one in triviality and will keep the original
accreditations.

Thanks,
-- 
Andrew :)

Senior Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04  C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222
https://keybase.io/gnu_andrew