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

Tue Jun 21 16:06:38 UTC 2016

On 6/20/16 4:48 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> The June 17 deadline has passed. Can we take it that the process is now approved and in-place and so we can start
> pushing once issues have been labelled with jdk9-fc-yes?

I thought Mark will comment about this but I think we can start with approvals since there were no objections.

I am starting approval of Hotspot FC extension requests.

Regards,
Vladimir

>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> On 11/06/2016 12:24 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
>>