On 1/15/2013 3:13 AM, Artem Ananiev wrote:
On 1/8/2013 10:56 PM, Seán Coffey wrote:
Phil,
Yes - people "should" cc relevant parties when such backports are taking
place. Not mandatory though. Rule 5 in code review guidelines :
http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7u/codereview.html
It's probably a good time to remind OpenJDK 7u contributors to carry out
such checks where applicable.
there's basically no justification of the need for a backport
and I heartily disapprove of backporting 8004316
I can't understand why you're against such a backport. It looks like
printing functionality is broken on some OSes without this fix. Given
that Jayashree backported this fix, I hope she can take responsibility
for any potential regressions that may be encountered.
I completely agree with Phil here.
JDK8 is not the same as JDK7u, sometimes reviewers approve risky fixes
for 8, in assumption there will be enough time to resolve all the
regressions without breaking anyone's applications. We can't afford
doing the same for 7u, which is already used in many production systems.
And those people using 7u in production often don't want to wait until
they can adopt JDK 8, say, a year after it ships, to have a fix for a
problem.
As always, there are tradeoffs between stability and progress. In my
estimation, the tradeoffs that are being made in the 7 update train in
that regard have been the right ones.
-Joe
