On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 20:15:49 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <k...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> doc-files/release-notes-24.md line 191: >> >>> 189: [JDK-8338701](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338701) | Provide >>> media support for libavcodec version 61 | media >>> 190: [JDK-8346228](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8346228) | Update >>> GStreamer to 1.24.10 | media >>> 191: [JDK-8346229](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8346229) | Update >>> Glib to 2.82.4 | media >> >> I'm not sure it's beneficial to include obsolete version updates. If the >> final update of a dependency is to 1.2.3, then any previous update (1.2.1) >> doesn't need to be listed, in my opinion. > > This is similar (but not quite the same) to the case of a bug that was > introduced and fixed in the same release, which we exclude with the rationale > that the end user or app developer who updates from one release to the next > never sees the interim state. I can see a case for excluding these two > third-party updates using the same reasoning. > > What do others think? @hjohn @johanvos @andy-goryachev-oracle ? > I am in favor of keeping intermediary revisions for the same reason > @kevinrushforth mentioned, and also because it eliminates manual filtering > (?) and associated mistakes. Actually, I was pointing out that it might be more consistent to _not_ keep them -- treating them like transiently introduced bugs -- but I can see both points. I'll let this percolate for a day or two and then we can decide. By default I'll leave them in since that's what we've done in the past, but they add little value. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1712#discussion_r1990118384
