Thanks Joe - its good to see this information being shared. Can you help me a little more though :-)
What I'm trying to figure out now is where I go to find and/or raise bugs for JAXP. The JAXP project has its own issue tracker. Can I assume that all JAXP bugs end up on that list? If so : 1 - Can I assume that P1-P3 bugs translate, in Jira terms, into : Blocker, Critical and Major? 2 - Can I/Should I raise bugs found in OpenJDK JAXP directly using the JAXP jira tracker? On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 18:04 -0800, Joe Wang wrote: > Steve, > > I sent out a brief plan about JDK7-JAXP development on 11/2010 to > build-dev in responding to Mark Wielaard's question. I'll combine that > with more details for the current development. Hope that helps. > > The plan for JDK7-JAXP is to include the following: > - all of the P1-P3 bug reports with a few exceptions, > - all of the blockers, critical issues, as well as some of the major > and minor bug fixes from Apache Xerces 2.10 and Xalan 2.7.1. > > Some of these have been done through jaxp 1.4.3 and 1.4.4. Others are > to be included in JAXP 1.4.5 which will be integrated into jdk7 > following the jdk7 schedule. You may find details of JAXP 1.4.3 and > 1.4.4 on jaxp.java.net, and below are the current plan/schedule for > JAXP 1.4.5 development: > > 1. Summary of Changes/Timeline: > > 1.1 Changes that have gone into JDK7 b126 > ---------------------------------- > -16 Major and 18 minor fixes(mostly validation related) taken from > Apache. > -High priority issues, P1, P2, regressions. > -Major TCK Issues addressed. > -Other conformance issues addressed > > 1.2 Changes that are coming in end of Feb/April integrations > ------------------------------------------------- > -Any new high priority issues: P1 and P2 bugs, regressions and etc. > -TCK issues > -Other P3 bugs > > 2. Compatibility risks/mitigation: > Most of the conformance issues came from newly added W3C tests in > JCK7. However, these tests do not exist in JAXP TCK 1.4 which was used > during the early JAXP 1.4.5 development. There was therefore risks > that some fixes may break the new JCK7. An alternative bundle for JAXP > TCK 1.4 has since been delivered. The changes above listed under 1.2 > will now run JAXP TCK with the alt-bundle for every fix, thus ensure > no patches would break JCK7. > > Thanks, > Joe > > On 1/28/2011 1:38 AM, Steve Poole wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 13:32 -0800, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: > > > > > > From: Steve Poole <spo...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:55:31 +0000 > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 11:37 -0800, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > As with any large software project, there are some exceptions: > > > > > > > > > > - Two features are not quite finished but have been approved for > > > > > post-FC integration: Update the XML Stack [1] and the Enhanced JMX > > > > > Agent and MBeans [2]. The late integration of these features is > > > > > not > > > > > expected to affect the overall schedule. > > > > > > > > > Mark - I can't seem to find any more information about these features. > > > > > > > > Can you explain how I find out more? For instance: > > > > > > > > * What versions of the XML components are going to be chosen? How is > > > > that decision made and where is it documented? > > > > > > > > * For the enhanced JMX Agent and Mbeans - where do I find out more about > > > > the design, objectives and delivery plan? > > > > > > > I've asked the teams responsible for these features to provide more > > > information, which they'll send directly to this list. > > > > > > > > Thanks Mark - look forward to seeing the info. > > > > > > > More generally, I'm aware that the JDK 7 development process is not as > > > transparent as many people (me included) would like. We'll do what we > > > can to address that, but in the near term we have to balance the cost > > > of such process changes against the goal of shipping JDK 7 this summer. > > > > > > In the longer term I fully intend to make the various JDK 8 planning > > > and development activities much more transparent, from the beginning. > > > > > > > That's all really good news Mark - however I will still be a little > > critical. There is no need to make any process changes to increase > > transparency. Simply posting more about what you are doing and why > > you're doing it will be of great benefit. > > > > So please, please, do not wait a moment. Start now in simple ways. > > There is no need to be polished about the presentation. > > > > I'm going to do my bit to improve transparency and the openness of > > OpenJDK by continue to ask those what,where,why and how questions :-) > > > > Anyway - thanks again Mark. Look forward to (soon) seeing more about > > your thoughts on making JDK 8 a fully open and transparent project. > > > > > > > - Mark > > > > > > > > >
