Integrated: 8340982: [win] Dead key followed by Space generates two characters instead of one

[Johan Vos]

Hi Johan,

Sorry for not replying earlier.
Since this is a real small fix, I think it makes sense to backport it to
17/21.
I'm a bit hesitant because of JEP 14 [1] and the current discussions on the
Tip&Tail approach [2] , where it is explicitly discouraged to backport
anything apart from vulnerabilities and critical errors. Since this is a P4
bug, I don't think it qualifies -- hence my doubt.

This is a situation that I believe could be discussed in jdk-dev -- not for
this issue in particular, but rather the principle: what is the
recommendation with backport requests for P4 bugs that are "small" and
"guaranteed to have no regression"?

I don't think it's good to have the discussion at 2 places, but to
summarize some of the key reasons on why not backporting
non-criticial things:
* we do not want to break existing work in LTS releases (software that
relies on some undocumented internal JavaFX behavior might go wrong if the
behavior is changed)
* we need to make sure the CPU fixes can "easily" be backported.
* time spent in tail-backporting can not be spent in tip-development. And
unfortunately, I learned the hard way that backporting is much more
time-consuming (and error-prone) than I hoped for.

Having said that, I definitely don't want to reject this upfront -- just
want to clarify the complexity and I very much welcome other input.

- Johan

[1]  https://openjdk.org/jeps/14
[2] https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/jdk-dev/2024-October/009433.html


Op di 5 nov 2024 om 11:40 schreef Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel at gmail.com>:

> On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 5:01 PM Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 10:30 PM Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 5:23 PM Kevin Rushforth
> > > <kevin.rushforth at oracle.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Gluon maintains JavaFX 17 and 21, so Johan can answer that.
> > > >
> > > > There is no maintainer for the JavaFX 8 or 11 code lines in OpenJDK.
> > >
> > > Ah yes, for 8 we use the Oracle JDK which includes its JavaFX build.
> > > So for backport to Oracle Java 8 I guess we'd need to ask Oracle.
> > >
> > > Having this fix backported into OpenJFX 17 and 21 would be great
> though.
> >
> > Coming back to this: any chance this fix could be backported to
> > OpenJFX 17 and 21?
>
> One last try: anyone able to backport this deadkey fix to 17 and 21?
> Or even take it into consideration for inclusion in OpenJFX 11 or JDK
> 8?
>
> --
> Johan
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/openjfx-dev/attachments/20241105/6444e454/attachment.htm>