On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 20:57:51 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <k...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> 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. I decided to remove these two bugs. In addition to avoiding confusion, listing those two releases, which have publishes CVEs logged against them, will leave a mistaken impression that JavaFX is vulnerable to the bugs associated with those two older versions. To address the filtering issues I defined two new labels: `javafx-rn-exclude` and `javafx-rn-include`, which can be applied to bugs and are used to filter in the same way that the `noreg-*` labels already are. The filter now has no manual list of bugs to include or exclude. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1712#discussion_r1994385908
