RFD: Draft guidelines for working on jdk8u

Langer, Christoph christoph.langer at sap.com
Wed Feb 13 22:06:43 UTC 2019


> -----Original Message-----
> From: jdk8u-dev <jdk8u-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net> On Behalf Of
> Andrew Hughes
> Sent: Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2019 17:50
> To: Volker Simonis <volker.simonis at gmail.com>
> Cc: jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net; jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: RFD: Draft guidelines for working on jdk8u
> I'd like to see 11u & 8u working in a similar way to minimise confusion. That
> means 8u adopting the tagging process from 11u, and 11 having two trees
> so we can separate release-ready sources from development sources.
> I've been thinking over a few things, but being too caught up with the
> last lingering
> parts of the CPU to post. My current idea is:
> 1. Changes are pushed to jdkxxu-dev after review and approval.
> 2. At regular periods (fortnightly?), changes are promoted to jdkxxu and
> tagged.
> 3. At a point before the CPU (basically when we have the patches, which is
> usually at most a month before), jdkxxu is declared frozen so we have a base
> for the update.
> 4. When the CPU is unembargoed, the changes are pushed to both trees and
> a release made. jdkxxu is unfrozen and #2 resumes.
> We will need something more involved if there are changes in jdkxxu-dev
> which
> may need longer to soak. I would suggest they use a project tree or a new
> tree
> within jdkxxu, then they are promoted to jdkxxu-dev when ready. This is
> much
> like the way the AArch64 & PPC ports were added and is essentially a third
> level below jdkxxu-dev.


> I think we need to stick to a restricted set of maintainers for jdkxx, as I said
> before [0]. The lead should obviously be one of those. I'll
> additionally nominate
> myself as someone who has a lot of experience of doing such merges and
> releases, e.g with OpenJDK 6 & 7. But we should aim for more people so we
> have some redundancy.

Right. The team at SAP volunteers for being involved as co-maintainers of jdk11u. ��

> I think that's broadly along similar lines to what you posted to the
> updates list earlier.

Yes, it looks to me as there is some common understanding here...
Best regards

More information about the jdk8u-dev mailing list