Update on bug system for OpenJDK

[Joe Darcy]

Roger Calnan wrote:
[snip]
>> One value I could see for the prefix is to have prefix for different workflows, 
>> JDK-bugs, CCC-issues, EFP-requirements etc. And also being open to the future 
>> possibility that other JDK associated projects and components might use the 
>> same infrastructure that we are setting up for OpenJDK.
>>     
> 	for CCC (this is the tool that we have used to track compatibility issues)
> the requests have a 1:1 mapping with bugs and so we would want that the
> CCC request for a bug 4040458 would have an equivalent ccc-4040458, but
> no doubt that would cause JIRA some problems as we would be allocating
> the IDs in a non-linear fashion.  EFP- (Engineering Feature Proposal, a
> response to a requirement) makes sense as a feature could result in a
> number of bugs and RFEs.
>   

As current ccc chairman, I would much prefer the ccc process of 
reviewing the compatibility impact and overall design of a JDK interface 
change [1] to be directly integrated into and supported by the new bug 
system rather than being a stand-alone system.

I have not looked into the separate workflow capabilities of either 
system, but I had envisioned such a workflow as being managed on adjunct 
data kept as part of the same bug and not requiring a separate bug per se.

-Joe

[1] 
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/OpenJdkDevGuide/OpenJdkDevelopersGuide.v0.777.html#kinds_of_interfaces