JDK 9 is not (yet) Feature Complete -- how will we get there?

[Vladimir Kozlov]

I would suggest to have a link to the latest webrev in JBS, when it is ready, to see the scope of changes.

And to have ability to change jdk9-fc-yes (approved) to jdk9-fc-no (rejected) if scope of final changes is larger than 
initially described in FC Extension Request.

thanks,
Vladimir

On 6/10/16 7:24 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> The JDK 9 schedule [1] lists a date for the Feature Complete milestone
> of 2016/5/26, about two weeks ago.  There's been some concern that this
> means that the JDK 9 (and hence Java SE 9) feature set is somehow frozen,
> but that's not the case.
>
> The milestones listed in the JDK 9 schedule are condition-driven rather
> than date-driven, as noted along with the milestone definitions [2].  We
> try our best to reach the goal of each milestone by its scheduled date.
> If we miss a date then we don't just blindly constrain further work so as
> to fit the date, we instead manage the remaining changes relevant to the
> milestone so as to reach its goal in a reasonable time frame without
> putting the final GA date at undue risk.  When we finally do reach the
> goal then we declare the milestone on that date.
>
> The goal of the Feature Complete milestone is to get all of the planned
> features, i.e., JEPs, and smaller enhancements integrated into the JDK 9
> master forest, together with their unit tests.  As of today most JEPs
> targeted to JDK 9 have been completed [3].  Fifteen JEPs remain, and a
> number of small enhancements are listed as intended for JDK 9 but are
> still either open or in progress.
>
> To manage the remaining JEPs and small enhancements so that we can reach
> the Feature Complete state in a timely fashion I hereby propose the
> following process:
>
>   - If you own a JEP or a small enhancement that is not yet complete then
>     you can request an FC extension as follows: Update the JBS issue to
>     add a comment whose first line is "FC Extension Request".  In that
>     comment describe the remaining work to be done, the risk level, a
>     brief justification, and your best estimate of the date by which the
>     feature will be complete.  Add the label "jdk9-fc-request" to the
>     issue.
>
>   - The Area Leads, relevant Group Leads, and I will review such requests
>     on a regular basis, at least weekly if not more often.  One of us
>     will take one of the following actions:
>
>       - Approve the request by adding the label "jdk9-fc-yes".
>
>       - Reject the request by adding the label "jdk9-fc-no", along
>         with a comment describing the reason for this action.
>
>       - Request more information by adding the label "jdk9-fc-nmi"
>         ("nmi" = "needs more information"), along with a comment
>         describing what information is requested.
>
>   - If you're asked to provide more information for an FC extension
>     request then please do so in a new comment in the issue, and then
>     remove the "jdk9-fc-nmi" label so that we see that it's ready for
>     re-review.
>
>   - If your request is approved then update the issue's due date to the
>     expected completion date.
>
>   - If you own a JEP that's targeted to JDK 9, but won't make it, then
>     please propose to drop it [4]; this will move the JEP back to the
>     Candidate state unless there are strong objections.  If you own a
>     small enhancement whose fix version is 9, but won't make it, then
>     please clear the fix-version field.
>
> If a JEP has been granted an FC extension then enhancement issues that
> block the JEP's issue are automatically considered to have FC extensions.
>
> If a JEP has not yet been targeted to JDK 9 then you can still propose to
> target it to the release, but going forward the bar for accepting new
> features will be increasingly high.
>
> For the record, the Area Leads are Mikael Vidstedt (VM) and Brian Goetz
> (Language and Libraries).  The relevant Group Leads are as follows, per
> the Census [5]:
>
>   Artem Ananiev - AWT
>   Alan Bateman - Core Libraries
>   Tim Bell - Build
>   Daniel D. Daugherty - Serviceability
>   Jonathan Gibbons - Compiler
>   Vladimir Kozlov - HotSpot
>   Michael McMahon - Networking
>   Sean Mullan - Security
>   Masayoshi Okutsu - Internationalization
>   Pavel Porvatov - Swing
>   Phil Race - 2D Graphics & Sound
>   Dalibor Topic - Porters
>
> JDK 9 Committers are invited to comment on this process proposal.  If no
> serious objections are raised in one week's time, by 15:00 UTC on 17 June
> 2016, then this is the process that we'll use.
>
> In anticipation that we will use this process, more or less, I encourage
> owners of not-yet-complete JEPs and small enhancements to go ahead and
> request extensions as described above, if desired, so that we can move
> quickly once the process is in place.
>
> - Mark
>
>
> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk9/
> [2] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8/milestones#definitions
> [3] http://j.mp/jdk9-features-jbs
> [4] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/jep/jep-2.0-02.html#Proposed-to-Drop
> [5] http://openjdk.java.net/census
>