On 1/9/2014 12:34 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 09/01/2014 08:07, Anthony Scarpino wrote:
As an aside, I think we should strike while the iron is hot and get the
changes required to move major versions written down somewhere (maybe
checked into the forest). I see Joe has updated the JDK_MINOR_VERSION,
there was change required to jtreg, and probably a few other changes
that. Having these tasks captured somewhere might make it easier the
next time.
Agreed. See below.
And Erik/Mark wrote:
>> For the future, is there a reason for not automatically generating the
>> "specification-version" based on the version numbers we have, or at
>> least move the definition of it to the version numbers file?
> Excellent question. We should try to minimize the number of places
> where version numbers need to be changed.
Just in case this suggestion gets forgotten, earlier this week, I added
a few notes/links to JDK-8029942, the JDK 10 equivalent for JDK-8000962.
JDK-8029942: Update JDK_MINOR_VERSION for JDK 10
JDK-8000962: Update JDK_MINOR_VERSION for JDK 9
If someone feels like including the bugid for JTREG changes, feel free
to add it. If so, then we might want to change the synopsis to a more
general "Update build version values to JDK 10" instead of "Update
JDK_MINOR_VERSION for JDK 10".
Brad
