JDK-8217305, JDK-8209002 and fixes
Andrew John Hughes
gnu.andrew at redhat.com
Mon Mar 11 19:27:13 UTC 2019
On 11/03/2019 19:11, Hohensee, Paul wrote:
> Yes, please do it, Kevin. I'm still learning protocol, which in this case is "if you tag a bug as a backport fix request, you own pushing it".
I think one of the issues with labelling bugs rather than asking for
approval on the list is it has broken the ordering in some cases. The
original expectation was:
1. Have fix for 8u reviewed by appropriate reviewers.
2. Have fix for 8u approved for inclusion by 8u maintainers.
If you look at it like this, having #2 done by the person working on the
fix makes sense because they will also have gone through #1. Of course,
#1 is skipped in the case of clean backports, which is where some of the
confusion comes about.
They are very different processes. #1 is a review of the content of the
patch as a good change to make. #2 is a review of whether the change is
appropriate at this point in the 8u lifecycle.
Where I think we still need to finesse #2 is in the deciding of whether
a fix goes to just 8u-dev or also 8u which will soon be in the second
stage of development for 8u212.
The wiki currently still contains:
Do we want to update that process slightly as a route for changes to go
into the later stages of 8u? It then becomes a case of jdk8u-fix-yes
gets you 8u-dev and 8u-CPU-critical-approved gets you jdk8u.
We may need to adopt a different label to avoid conflicts with Oracle.
It does look kind of abandoned though, at the minute. I still have a
pending request which has been made redundant by the release of 8u202:
Senior Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222
More information about the jdk8u-dev