Initial forests for JDK 9
stuart.marks at oracle.com
Thu Dec 12 10:12:08 PST 2013
On 12/12/13 7:35 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> 2013/12/11 10:57 -0800, stuart.marks at oracle.com:
>> I wholeheartedly agree that push notifications should be moved away from the
>> various *-dev discussion lists and moved onto dedicated change notification
>> lists, per forest.
>> If the "master" forest ends up actually being called "master" per my earlier
>> e-mail then the notification list for it would be jdk9-master-changes.
> I think the master forest is the exception. Everyone working on the
> release should be aware of changes to the master, so notifications
> for that forest should go to jdk9-dev, just as notifications for the
> JDK 8 master went to jdk8-dev.
I agree that everybody **should** be aware of changes to the master, but mixing
changeset notifications and discussion makes it more difficult for people to
control how they process mail. For example, I do a lot of filtering of OpenJDK
mail based on the mailing list to which it was delivered (using the Delivered-To
header). If notifications were mixed with discussion, I'd have to apply an
additional filter based on the subject line. This fails with replies to
changeset notices, for example.
Speaking of replies, should notifications set a reply-to header directing
replies to a discussion list? Having discussion on a dedicated notification list
would seem like a problem. (This applies to all the per-forest notification
lists, not just master.)
More information about the jdk9-dev