Proposed schedule change for JDK 9

Jeremy Manson jeremymanson at
Thu Dec 10 06:37:48 UTC 2015

Thanks to everyone who responded.  Obviously, none of our JEPs would end up
driving the platform, so we'll proceed and see what happens.


On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 8:49 AM, <mark.reinhold at> wrote:

> 2015/12/1 3:20 -0800, jeremymanson at
> > What constitutes a reasonable JEP in this time frame?  Is it basically
> > defined as one that doesn't add undue risk to the overall release?
> Yes.  It's better to reserve room for informed judgement on individual
> JEPs than try to come up with a uniform set of rules for all JEPs.
> > I have no particular concerns about the timeline for Jigsaw features,
> but I
> > do have concerns about the velocity of OpenJDK development.  If larger
> JEPs
> > are not going to be able to target Java 9, and the releases are being put
> > on hold for 6 months, will this timeline shift have an effect on when the
> > Mercurial repos are made available for JDK10?
> (You mean "JDK 10", with a space after the "K".)
> >                                                Will larger JEPs be able
> to
> > target Java 10 earlier?
> I expect that the JDK 10 forests will open six months later than they
> otherwise would have.
> > We have a couple of JEPs that we've been meaning to write, but we felt
> like
> > we missed the Java 9 deadline, so the answer to this will inform our 2016
> > plans.
> I think that what Volker said is apt here.  Large projects with broad
> impact such as Lambda and Jigsaw generally wind up driving a particular
> release.  Most JEPs, however, are not that large, and the best strategy
> is to move them through the process as soon as they're ready so that
> they can be proposed to target the next appropriate release.
> > Also, will this affect the flexibility in backporting new features to
> > JDK8?
> That will be up to those working on the JDK 8 Updates Project.
> - Mark

More information about the jdk9-dev mailing list