Initial forests for JDK 9

mark.reinhold at mark.reinhold at
Thu Dec 12 11:13:29 PST 2013

2013/12/12 2:12 -0800, stuart.marks at
> 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.

Filtering out changeset notifications is easy -- just look for the
X-Hg-URL (or X-Hg-Changeset) header.

> 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.)

Iris -- What's your plan for the Reply-To headers of changeset

- Mark

More information about the jdk9-dev mailing list