Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 2:50 AM, dalibor topic wrote: > > For example, if someone sufficiently qualified decided to make future JDK > 10 updates buildable using the full range of JDK 1.0 - JDK 10, as Martin > seemingly suggests, they could pursue that effort as future JDK 10 update > maintainers i

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

On 04/06/2018 09:57 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote: On 2018-04-06 09:51, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: I think the N-1 policy should be more clearly stated as "last GA". When we started work on JDK 11, JDK 10 had not yet shipped, and so it was appropriate for JDK 11 to use JDK 9 as the boot jdk. Now tha

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

On 2018-04-06 09:51, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: I think the N-1 policy should be more clearly stated as "last GA". When we started work on JDK 11, JDK 10 had not yet shipped, and so it was appropriate for JDK 11 to use JDK 9 as the boot jdk.  Now that JDK 10 has shipped, it becomes a candidate to

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

On 4/6/18 2:16 AM, Andrew Dinn wrote: Hi Erik, On 05/04/18 18:57, Erik Joelsson wrote: The intention of my second suggested patch was basically to keep allowing JDK 9 in configure for a while but being pretty sure it would stop working eventually. I don't like doing it that way. It's much bett

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

On 05.04.2018 20:11, Erik Joelsson wrote: On 2018-04-04 18:56, Martin Buchholz wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:03 PM, David Holmes > wrote:     On 5/04/2018 7:00 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:     I have to agree. There can't be two bootJDK versions. I have

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

Hi Erik, On 05/04/18 18:57, Erik Joelsson wrote: > The intention of my second suggested patch was basically to keep > allowing JDK 9 in configure for a while but being pretty sure it would > stop working eventually. I don't like doing it that way. It's much > better with a clear fail early error i

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

On 4/5/18 10:57 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote: On 2018-04-05 09:15, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: I think one aspect of this discussion that is important and has been overlooked is that there is no clear statement (specification?) anywhere of the requirements for building OpenJDK. Since forever, the unw

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

On 2018-04-04 18:56, Martin Buchholz wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:03 PM, David Holmes > wrote: On 5/04/2018 7:00 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: I have to agree. There can't be two bootJDK versions. I have to disagree.  You could design openjdk to be

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

On 2018-04-05 09:15, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: I think one aspect of this discussion that is important and has been overlooked is that there is no clear statement (specification?) anywhere of the requirements for building OpenJDK. Since forever, the unwritten rule has been N-1 [*] and that assump

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

I think one aspect of this discussion that is important and has been overlooked is that there is no clear statement (specification?) anywhere of the requirements for building OpenJDK. Since forever, the unwritten rule has been N-1 [*] and that assumption has become pervasive. And, as we have se

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

On 04/04/2018 22:00, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: Erik, Why bother?  What are you trying to achieve? Either the boot JDK is JDK 9, or it is JDK 10.  This should be a clear decision. If internally at Oracle, we use 10, then as soon as code creeps in that relies on 10 features, we've broken the co

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

On 2018-04-05 04:01, David Holmes wrote: On 5/04/2018 11:56 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:03 PM, David Holmes > wrote:     On 5/04/2018 7:00 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:     I have to agree. There can't be two bootJDK versions. I have to

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

On 5/04/2018 11:56 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:03 PM, David Holmes > wrote: On 5/04/2018 7:00 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: I have to agree. There can't be two bootJDK versions. I have to disagree.  You could design openjdk to be

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:03 PM, David Holmes wrote: > On 5/04/2018 7:00 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: > >> >> I have to agree. There can't be two bootJDK versions. I have to disagree. You could design openjdk to be buildable by any set of boot JDKs. It's only the fact that javac happens to be wr

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

On 5/04/2018 7:00 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: Erik, Why bother?  What are you trying to achieve? Either the boot JDK is JDK 9, or it is JDK 10.  This should be a clear decision. If internally at Oracle, we use 10, then as soon as code creeps in that relies on 10 features, we've broken the c

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

I'm a big fan of portability and flexibility, so I would want to test with all the supported boot jdks, perhaps even chosen randomly. But if you test with only one boot jdk, then it should be the recommended version.

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

Erik, Why bother? What are you trying to achieve? Either the boot JDK is JDK 9, or it is JDK 10. This should be a clear decision. If internally at Oracle, we use 10, then as soon as code creeps in that relies on 10 features, we've broken the commitment to the community for allowing 9 as a