https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #39 from Severin Gehwolf <[email protected]> --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #37) > jdk11 havebeen forked. > > > > It's been suggested that http://hg.openjdk.java.net/shenandoah/jdk is the > > Shenandoah dev forest and we should not be using it. We should be using > > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/shenandoah/jdk11 once jdk/jdk11 has been forked. > > Either way, we'll be changing sources in an update: > > > > jdk/jdk => jdk/jdk11 > > > > or > > > > jdk/jdk => shenandoah/jdk11 > > Shenadoah was not. I guess it will anytime soon. > Once forked, is it ok enough tobe used? Once shenandoah/jdk11 exists, we should be sure equivalent jdk-11+BB tags exist and then we should use that tree on all arches. It's my understanding that shenandoah support will be built in by default on all arches that support it and left out on arches which don't. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/IPBKFR5AJXMBYI3EA4ZSGHO2UMSAJTSZ/
