JDK 9 is not (yet) Feature Complete -- how will we get there?
vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com
Tue Jun 21 16:06:38 UTC 2016
On 6/20/16 4:48 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> The June 17 deadline has passed. Can we take it that the process is now approved and in-place and so we can start
> pushing once issues have been labelled with jdk9-fc-yes?
I thought Mark will comment about this but I think we can start with approvals since there were no objections.
I am starting approval of Hotspot FC extension requests.
> On 11/06/2016 12:24 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