JDK 9 is not (yet) Feature Complete -- how will we get there?
vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com
Wed Jun 15 19:23:29 UTC 2016
I would suggest to have a link to the latest webrev in JBS, when it is ready, to see the scope of changes.
And to have ability to change jdk9-fc-yes (approved) to jdk9-fc-no (rejected) if scope of final changes is larger than
initially described in FC Extension Request.
On 6/10/16 7:24 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> The JDK 9 schedule  lists a date for the Feature Complete milestone
> of 2016/5/26, about two weeks ago. There's been some concern that this
> means that the JDK 9 (and hence Java SE 9) feature set is somehow frozen,
> but that's not the case.
> The milestones listed in the JDK 9 schedule are condition-driven rather
> than date-driven, as noted along with the milestone definitions . We
> try our best to reach the goal of each milestone by its scheduled date.
> If we miss a date then we don't just blindly constrain further work so as
> to fit the date, we instead manage the remaining changes relevant to the
> milestone so as to reach its goal in a reasonable time frame without
> putting the final GA date at undue risk. When we finally do reach the
> goal then we declare the milestone on that date.
> The goal of the Feature Complete milestone is to get all of the planned
> features, i.e., JEPs, and smaller enhancements integrated into the JDK 9
> master forest, together with their unit tests. As of today most JEPs
> targeted to JDK 9 have been completed . Fifteen JEPs remain, and a
> number of small enhancements are listed as intended for JDK 9 but are
> still either open or in progress.
> To manage the remaining JEPs and small enhancements so that we can reach
> the Feature Complete state in a timely fashion I hereby propose the
> following process:
> - If you own a JEP or a small enhancement that is not yet complete then
> you can request an FC extension as follows: Update the JBS issue to
> add a comment whose first line is "FC Extension Request". In that
> comment describe the remaining work to be done, the risk level, a
> brief justification, and your best estimate of the date by which the
> feature will be complete. Add the label "jdk9-fc-request" to the
> - The Area Leads, relevant Group Leads, and I will review such requests
> on a regular basis, at least weekly if not more often. One of us
> will take one of the following actions:
> - Approve the request by adding the label "jdk9-fc-yes".
> - Reject the request by adding the label "jdk9-fc-no", along
> with a comment describing the reason for this action.
> - Request more information by adding the label "jdk9-fc-nmi"
> ("nmi" = "needs more information"), along with a comment
> describing what information is requested.
> - If you're asked to provide more information for an FC extension
> request then please do so in a new comment in the issue, and then
> remove the "jdk9-fc-nmi" label so that we see that it's ready for
> - If your request is approved then update the issue's due date to the
> expected completion date.
> - If you own a JEP that's targeted to JDK 9, but won't make it, then
> please propose to drop it ; this will move the JEP back to the
> Candidate state unless there are strong objections. If you own a
> small enhancement whose fix version is 9, but won't make it, then
> please clear the fix-version field.
> If a JEP has been granted an FC extension then enhancement issues that
> block the JEP's issue are automatically considered to have FC extensions.
> If a JEP has not yet been targeted to JDK 9 then you can still propose to
> target it to the release, but going forward the bar for accepting new
> features will be increasingly high.
> For the record, the Area Leads are Mikael Vidstedt (VM) and Brian Goetz
> (Language and Libraries). The relevant Group Leads are as follows, per
> the Census :
> Artem Ananiev - AWT
> Alan Bateman - Core Libraries
> Tim Bell - Build
> Daniel D. Daugherty - Serviceability
> Jonathan Gibbons - Compiler
> Vladimir Kozlov - HotSpot
> Michael McMahon - Networking
> Sean Mullan - Security
> Masayoshi Okutsu - Internationalization
> Pavel Porvatov - Swing
> Phil Race - 2D Graphics & Sound
> Dalibor Topic - Porters
> JDK 9 Committers are invited to comment on this process proposal. If no
> serious objections are raised in one week's time, by 15:00 UTC on 17 June
> 2016, then this is the process that we'll use.
> In anticipation that we will use this process, more or less, I encourage
> owners of not-yet-complete JEPs and small enhancements to go ahead and
> request extensions as described above, if desired, so that we can move
> quickly once the process is in place.
> - Mark
>  http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk9/
>  http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8/milestones#definitions
>  http://j.mp/jdk9-features-jbs
>  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/jep/jep-2.0-02.html#Proposed-to-Drop
>  http://openjdk.java.net/census
More information about the jdk9-dev