Accelerating the JDK release cadence (original) (raw)

Jonathan Bluett-Duncan jbluettduncan at gmail.com
Thu Sep 7 19:19:35 UTC 2017

...Github is horribly slow for larger projects.

I wonder if you could you point me to a particular open source project on GitHub that suffers from this problem, and explain to me what slows down exactly? I ask as I've worked with large projects like Bazel, and the only slow operations I personally remember having encountered are downloading large Git histories for the first time and importing such projects into IDEs.

Cheers, Jonathan

On 7 September 2017 at 20:12, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan < jbluettduncan at gmail.com> wrote:

2. Every product that has used time-based version numbers has inevitably

dropped the approach (the only exception that comes to mind is MS Word). When this happens, the version history is permanently polluted with large version numbers. Instead of hijacking the major.minor version numbers, consider placing this information in the build number (e.g. 9.1.5+2017-11-15)

Oh, really? I thought that Ubuntu and IntelliJ IDEA still follow a time-based version scheme. Cheers, Jonathan On 7 September 2017 at 20:04, cowwoc <cowwoc at bbs.darktech.org> wrote: While I like the idea of more frequent releases, I see two problems with the proposal in its current form:

1. It takes longer than 6 months for users to expose design problems. Consider tagging new features with @Beta annotations, allowing the breaking of backward compatibility for another year or so, and eventually graduating them to stability by removing the @Beta tags. 2. Every product that has used time-based version numbers has inevitably dropped the approach (the only exception that comes to mind is MS Word). When this happens, the version history is permanently polluted with large version numbers. Instead of hijacking the major.minor version numbers, consider placing this information in the build number (e.g. 9.1.5+2017-11-15) Gili

-- Sent from: http://openjdk.5641.n7.nabble.com/OpenJDK-General-discussion -f67169.html

More information about the discuss mailing list