On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 09:00:52 GMT, Alan Bateman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I am sorry for this situation, but I can't say when or if we will be able to >> do something about this. >> >> Currently, keeping the constant for one more release is always safe; >> removing it may be OK, but it is difficult to determine whether the missing >> constant will cause problems of not. It is only if the interim javac would >> touch a classfile that uses the constant, but it is not easy to say whether >> that will be the case. (And, IIRC, we've had a situation in the past that we >> had to re-introduce a constant, because it was needed in some specific >> circumstances.) >> >> I'll think again of ways to avoid the need to keep the constants. > >> I am sorry for this situation, but I can't say when or if we will be able to >> do something about this. > > No need to be sorry, you've always been very helpful and patient on this > matter. > > @ascarpino I assume you'll update the PR to leave the constant in place. You > can probably drop the core-libs and compiler labels from the PR if you want > to keep the review on security-dev. To be sure, I need to leave `PEM_API`, but I can remove the `@JEP` line, correct? @AlanBateman will do. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29640#discussion_r2824069480
