----- Original Message ----- > Hi Alan, > > On 4/08/2012 1:36 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > Phil's comment about the back-port only being discussed on > > jdk7u-dev is > > probably worth further discussion. > > > > One thing about jdk7u is that the barrier to get changes in is very > > low. > > On one hand this is is wonderful as it means we can get fixes into > > jdk7u > > in a timely manner and also keep the code mostly in sync with jdk8. > > On > > the other hand it allows changes to go into jdk7u before they have > > been > > tested or had any real usage in jdk8. I can point to several fixes > > in > > jdk8 that had side effects that only came to light after a few > > weeks. > > One would hope that if something creeps into jdk7u that it would be > > found in a timely manner, it's just that sometimes (not always) it > > is > > better to wait a bit before rushing a change into jdk7u. > > I raised the issue of bake-time previously: > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk7u-dev/2011-September/000307.html > > See in particular Edvard's response: > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk7u-dev/2011-September/000315.html >
Ah, ok. This suggests things are working as they should, as the issue was caught and the backport reverted in the stabilisation stage :-) > David > ----- > > > > > I think Phil's suggestion is that back-port requests should cc the > > mailing list for the area. That would at least allow the original > > author > > and reviewers a chance to jump in if they wish. I think this > > suggestion > > make sense as it improves the chances of the "domain experts" > > seeing it. > > > > -Alan. > > > > > > > -- Andrew :) Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/) Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F 8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07
