Future jdk9u updates & 9-critical-request (original) (raw)

Rob McKenna rob.mckenna at oracle.com
Thu Jan 25 18:17:00 UTC 2018

Hi Andrew

This is the first time we've encountered this situation so my apologies for any alarm caused. On reflection I should have been more proactive about explicitly seeking out a new maintainer for JDK 9 Updates.

As Dalibor notes [1] we would welcome a suitable party who wished to step forward to maintain future 9 Updates. My reluctance to approve these particular requests was to avoid pre-empting decisions made by that new maintainer.

I'll send out a proposal shortly on how we can handle the maintenance of such releases in the future.

-Rob

[1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk-updates-dev/2017-November/000024.html

On 25/01/18 17:31, Andrew Haley wrote:

On 25/01/18 17:28, Alan Bateman wrote: > On 25/01/2018 16:46, Andrew Haley wrote >> : >> This is ridiculously hostile behaviour: to break a bunch of things >> in OpenJDK, do a release, and then immediately drop the project >> on the floor before giving anyone a chance to fix what is broken. >> Really, I would have expected better than this. >> >> I guess I'll have to be the project maintainer for long enough to >> commit the necessary fixes so that jdk9u works for all ports, not >> just the ones that Oracle ships. >> > I don't think anyone deliberately broke anything. I think it's just that > 9.0.4 was a security release so the changes couldn't bake in > jdk-updates/jdk9u.

Sure, I understand that it wasn't deliberate. However, the immediate tagging and tying-off of the branch was. > This may be something that the establishment of the vulnerabilities > group will help with. That is surely true. > Alternatively maybe the JDK Update maintainers could just approve > the changes needed to get the ports aligned and leave it at that. That would be nice. > If someone steps up to maintain the JDK 9 updates going forward then > they could tag a new release that includes the changes. Well, I could formally take over the project, but it seems a bit excessive. I'll do that if it's the only way to get it done. -- Andrew Haley Java Platform Lead Engineer Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com> EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671

More information about the jdk-updates-dev mailing list