Future jdk9u updates & 9-critical-request

Andrew Dinn adinn at redhat.com
Thu Jan 25 17:36:07 UTC 2018

On 25/01/18 17:28, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 25/01/2018 16:46, Andrew Haley wrote
>> :
>> This is ridiculously hostile behaviour: to break a bunch of things
>> in OpenJDK, do a release, and then immediately drop the project
>> on the floor before giving anyone a chance to fix what is broken.
>> Really, I would have expected better than this.
>> I guess I'll have to be the project maintainer for long enough to
>> commit the necessary fixes so that jdk9u works for all ports, not
>> just the ones that Oracle ships.
> I don't think anyone deliberately broke anything. I think it's just that
> 9.0.4 was a security release so the changes couldn't bake in
> jdk-updates/jdk9u.

No, of course it was not deliberate breakage. The deliberate action we
are concerned about would be simply walking away from the mess afterwards.

> This may be something that the establishment of the vulnerabilities
> group will help with. Alternatively maybe the JDK Update maintainers
> could just approve the changes needed to get the ports aligned and leave
> it at that. If someone steps up to maintain the JDK 9 updates going
> forward then they could tag a new release that includes the changes.
Well, of course, this is a poster-child level argument for getting the
vulnerabilities group sorted out asap. But that's a secondary question
right now. The important question still remains what to do about a tree
that has been left in a half-baked state. I think it would make a great
deal of sense for the existing patches which are known to resolve the
problem to be pushed to the current tree.


Andrew Dinn
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd
Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill, Eric Shander

More information about the jdk-updates-dev mailing list