I did some corpus analysis for the following question from your doc: There is a question on how broadly we want to affect typing rules for raw > types; one option is to alter the rules for all type references; another, > more conservative option, would be to use the refined rules only for enum > raw type references (on the basis that generic enums and raw types will be > frequently used together). The latter path has the clear advantage of > avoiding all kinds of source compatibility issues, but it is more > inconsistent - refactoring a generic enum into a class might lead to > surprises.
I found roughly one breaking change per 55000 files. For context that's about four times as many as the fix that was discussed recently for JDK-8207224. Less quantitatively, in the corpus I looked at it is noticeable but wouldn't be very difficult to work around, especially because there's usually a trivial semantics-preserving fix of adding an explicit unchecked cast. (For the analysis I applied only the changes to Types from the enhanced-enums branch, and commented out all of the `isEnum` checks.)
