Initial forests for JDK 9

Stuart Marks stuart.marks at
Thu Dec 12 10:12:08 PST 2013

On 12/12/13 7:35 AM, mark.reinhold at wrote:
> 2013/12/11 10:57 -0800, stuart.marks at
>> 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 mailing list