Hi Johan, Sorry for not replying earlier. Since this is a real small fix, I think it makes sense to backport it to 17/21. I'm a bit hesitant because of JEP 14 [1] and the current discussions on the Tip&Tail approach [2] , where it is explicitly discouraged to backport anything apart from vulnerabilities and critical errors. Since this is a P4 bug, I don't think it qualifies -- hence my doubt.
This is a situation that I believe could be discussed in jdk-dev -- not for this issue in particular, but rather the principle: what is the recommendation with backport requests for P4 bugs that are "small" and "guaranteed to have no regression"? I don't think it's good to have the discussion at 2 places, but to summarize some of the key reasons on why not backporting non-criticial things: * we do not want to break existing work in LTS releases (software that relies on some undocumented internal JavaFX behavior might go wrong if the behavior is changed) * we need to make sure the CPU fixes can "easily" be backported. * time spent in tail-backporting can not be spent in tip-development. And unfortunately, I learned the hard way that backporting is much more time-consuming (and error-prone) than I hoped for. Having said that, I definitely don't want to reject this upfront -- just want to clarify the complexity and I very much welcome other input. - Johan [1] https://openjdk.org/jeps/14 [2] https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/jdk-dev/2024-October/009433.html Op di 5 nov 2024 om 11:40 schreef Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 5:01 PM Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 10:30 PM Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 5:23 PM Kevin Rushforth > > > <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Gluon maintains JavaFX 17 and 21, so Johan can answer that. > > > > > > > > There is no maintainer for the JavaFX 8 or 11 code lines in OpenJDK. > > > > > > Ah yes, for 8 we use the Oracle JDK which includes its JavaFX build. > > > So for backport to Oracle Java 8 I guess we'd need to ask Oracle. > > > > > > Having this fix backported into OpenJFX 17 and 21 would be great > though. > > > > Coming back to this: any chance this fix could be backported to > > OpenJFX 17 and 21? > > One last try: anyone able to backport this deadkey fix to 17 and 21? > Or even take it into consideration for inclusion in OpenJFX 11 or JDK > 8? > > -- > Johan >
